The Second Court of Appeals shot down a lawsuit Wednesday challenging the constitutionality of "Ladies' Night" drink specials. Roy Den Hollander, the self-described "anti-feminist" New York lawyer who filed the suit, has vowed to appeal the decision to the Supreme Court. What does this ruling say for our American democracy? A sampling of opinions:

  • Less Than Shocking  Hollander's lawsuit was a non-starter from the beginning, writes Slate. During deliberations "you could practically hear the giggles coming from the Second Circuit Court of Appeals." In writing the decision, the judges seemed to take special "pleasure in quoting from Den Hollander's self-prepared legal documents acknowledging that 'without action on our part, [he] paints a picture of a bleak future, where 'none other than what's left of the Wall Street moguls' will be able to afford to attend nightclubs.'"
  • Lame Stunt  The Daily Beast praised the ruling, not just because it upheld the tradition of $2 Coronas, but because it finally got Roy Den Hollander out of the news. "It’s good to see that this gigantic waste of everyone’s time is over," the site declared.
  • Loopy Plaintiff  Den Hollander was uniquely ill-suited to lead any sort of crusade for gender equity, writes Jezebel's Irin Carmon. "Poor Russian wife-abusing, Women's Studies' program-suing, young-lady-preying Roy!" snarked Carmon. For a lawyer, she notes, Hollander seemed unaware of "basic civics," a concept "fairly relevant to his cause."
  • Just One of Those Things  Giving women cheap drinks isn't fair, concedes Time's Kayla Webley concedes that while preferential pricing is not necessarily fair, "that doesn't make it illegal." The truth of the matter, she writes, is that "when it comes to a night out on the town it's good to be a girl." Pending appeal, of course.