First amendment suit against AIG bailout
stevenjamar at gmail.com
Tue Dec 16 11:26:13 PST 2008
If that were true, wouldn't it be proper to dismiss it as no case or
controversy since the sponsor of the suit would in fact have no interest in
pursuing its best argument vigorously?
As I said, I'd be sorely tempted to make a rule 11 motion against the
plaintiffs in this one.
On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 1:31 PM, <ArtSpitzer at aol.com> wrote:
> I'm cynical enough to suspect that the Thomas More Center has no
> expectation of winning this case, but is hoping for broad language in an
> opinion that it can then use to beat back future Establishment Clause claims
> against its Christian clients. Perhaps I'm too cynical.
> Art Spitzer
> Not speaking for the ACLU
> In a message dated 12/16/08 10:11:56 AM, laycockd at umich.edu writes:
> The Thomas More Center seems to think the Establishment Clause means very
> little as applied to Christianity and more than anyone else can imagine as
> applied to other faiths.
> Make your life easier with all your friends, email, and favorite sites in
> one place. Try it now. (
> To post, send message to Religionlaw at lists.ucla.edu
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
> Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as
> private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are
> posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or
> wrongly) forward the messages to others.
Prof. Steven Jamar
Howard University School of Law
Associate Director, Institute of Intellectual Property and Social Justice
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Religionlaw