X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Privacy interests not alike While I agree with Jonathan Turley’s analysis that Lawrence v. Texas is “more about privacy than homosexuality” ["Gay rights: not as radical as all that," NLJ, July 14], I do not agree that logically any privacy right to “intimate sexual relations” is linked to any “right to choose”/”right to abortion,” for the obvious reason that abortion also involves the rights of a third party, a potential or actual other human being. Interestingly, this kind of semantic overreaching is similar to the way the Vatican confuses the issues by lumping together contraception and abortion in its opposition to both. Michael L. O’Neill Daytona Beach, Fla. Liberal bias in article I found Marcia Coyle’s article on the recent U.S. Supreme Court term ["Follow the People," NLJ, Aug. 4], riddled with liberal assumptions and biases. For example, she asserts that the court “caught up with a large segment of society that accepts . . . affirmative action.” There are two errors in this. First, that the purpose and duty of the Supreme Court is to keep up with society (which, as Justice Scalia points out repeatedly in his scholarly publications and opinions, inevitably means the liberal elites of our society) instead of interpreting a document with a stable, discernible meaning. Second, that anything other than a large majority of the people in our nation, in poll after poll and referendum after referendum, has always found affirmative action as practiced by the University of Michigan and other educational institutions morally repugnant. Another instance of glaring liberal bias is when Justice O’Connor is described as charting a “moderating path” on issues like abortion. How is making up a right to the gruesome practice of partial birth abortion moderate? Your publication should not allow such gross bias to pass as anything other than opinion or commentary. Lee J. Strang Wheaton, Ill. Casino went overboard In regard to “Here’s a Nickel’s Worth of Advice: Forget the Nickel” by Leonard Post [NLJ, July 28], many have documented the “death of contract” in the law, as it becomes slowly subsumed in tort. Here is one of those cases I love most-the ones that become law school exam questions-the ones that force courts to weigh in on inherently conflicting contract, tort and property issues all in one. And the winner is: property law. Here, a lady is accused of a tort (actually, a crime-larceny-for stealing a nickel credit left behind by someone on a slot machine) and breaching a contract (internal casino policy against this practice), but she claims a prior peaceable possessory interest in otherwise abandoned property. I think the court decided correctly that there was no tort, crime or breach of contract because the policy was not made known to her nor can the knowledge of it be reasonably imputed by conspicuous public posting, awareness, etc. The nickel credit was clearly abandoned and could not have reverted to the casino’s possession because the casino had no manifest intention to exercise possession, nor specific knowledge of the nickel credit’s existence. Perhaps a more effective argument, avoiding a personal attack, might be that once coins are placed in the machines, they become property of the casino and any award or credit is solely a contractual undertaking exclusively between the casino and the person putting the coin in the machine. Then, no technical abandonment could operate to divest the casino of its property. Instead, the casino argued that this nice little old lady was a criminal-not very smart “PR.” Scott Brenner New York, N.Y.

This content has been archived. It is available exclusively through our partner LexisNexis®.

To view this content, please continue to Lexis Advance®.

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber? Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® is now the exclusive third party online distributor of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® customers will be able to access and use ALM's content by subscribing to the LexisNexis® services via Lexis Advance®. This includes content from the National Law Journal®, The American Lawyer®, Law Technology News®, The New York Law Journal® and Corporate Counsel®, as well as ALM's other newspapers, directories, legal treatises, published and unpublished court opinions, and other sources of legal information.

ALM's content plays a significant role in your work and research, and now through this alliance LexisNexis® will bring you access to an even more comprehensive collection of legal content.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]

 
 

ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2020 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.