>>Again, not everything they don’t take on is a lost cause. You don’t understand case law or precedent apparently. They can win one kind of case that can then be used as precedent for other similar cases, and then they can send a letter to the offending party and they back down.
>>You don’t have to take every case if you can win one similar case and establish a precedent that can be applied to other similar cases. Often the other side does not want to go to court if it appears established case law isn’t on their side.
I understand business law well enough to know that:
To take a case that you probably won’t win will set the WRONG precedent making it harder to win a similar, but with differing circumstances, later. This is because your loss will become the precedent.
Part of knowing when to take the case or not is knowing the established case law beforehand. That knowledge figures into the decision to take the case or not.
Given the nature of this case, which is generally the kinds of cases these groups take, explain to me what you are thinking of, that would represent a legal situation a Christian in todays world finds himself in, that would not constitute a “good” case/be a “lost cause” case? I can’t think of one. Certainly none of the articles we see here about Christians having to go to court to protect their religious rights, they are not small cases or “lost cause” cases.
I would believe if it is a “small” case, these probably ARE the cases where Liberty Counsel just has to send a letter and the other side backs down.