Tuesday, July 13, 2010

Update: Anglican Curmudgeon weighs in on Virginia Churches petition to the Virginia Supreme Court

See update here and here.


Anam Cara said...

Did I miss something? It seems that both "see update here" and "here" are the same link. Should "here" take us to something different?

BabyBlue said...

Fixed! First one is the Cafe where there is a discussion going on and the second one is Curmudgeon's post. :)

Thank you!


Anonymous said...

I think the Curmudgeon has been tippling.

The unapproved protocol doesn't, and never will, matter. Virginia doesn't recognize promissory estoppel, and won't here.

A more rational view is this:


Anonymous said...

Or this:


Václav Patrik Šulik said...

How brave to say the Curmudgeon is a drunk in an anonymous post!

It is true that Virginia does not recognize promissory estoppel and will not do so (it's almost a point of pride now, I think). However, that is not his argument. The point goes back to the evidence of what constitutes a branch. I can understand why you thought he might be arguing promissory estoppel ("...ADV ... was not formed as a legal entity until the congregations in question had decided to follow the Protocol drawn up by the Diocese of Virginia for departing parishes.") but this is not his argument, nor is it that of the CANA attorneys.

Anonymous said...

I didn't take the "tippling" reference in the earlier comment to be literal. I doubt that very many did, other than the previous commenter. Mr. Haley's posts always reflect a high level of thought and composition, even when he is mistaken.

The one point he (Haley or the Anglican Curmudgeon) makes in BB's linked post that particularly helps us to assess this petition for reconsideration is that only one judge has to buy into the petition for it to be teed up for the full court. CANA can win further review with a 1-4 or 2-3 score. They can only lose with a 5-0 shut-out. This softens my view somewhat that this tactic is just a layering on of process and has virtually no chance of success. Conversely, if the petition is not granted, it can be retrospectively judged to have been a singularly unpersuasive argument in that it could not garner even one vote out of five. We shall see. However, if reconsideration is granted, and if a majority is convinced that this secondary argument about ADV has merit, it continues to strike me that the constitutional challenge to the statute cannot be escaped by the Court, as it was in the June decision.