Have you read the court opinions? Do you know what was really at issue? Is it fair to say "multiple courts" ruling against him makes him arrogant, just because

Have you read the court opinions? Do you know what was really at issue? Is it fair to say "multiple courts" ruling against him makes him arrogant, just because he exercised his right to appeal? Does a contrary court decision really mean that one is wrong or acting with hubris -- how many gay rights cases have lost around the country before things shifted? Without spending more than 5 minutes looking into this (so this could be an inaccurate or unfair summary), it looks like: 1. Per Vinod's blog post (https://medium.com/@vkhosla/martins-beach-a-matter-of-principle-property-rights-b32f4de1c97 https://medium.com/@vkhosla/martins-beach-a-matter-of-princi...), multiple courts have actually agreed with him that there is no right of public access at Martin’s Beach, finding in favor of Vinod on 7 different legal theories that were brought. 2. In Vinod's view, the plaintiffs then only succeeded based on a claim in a separate case they brought that changing the access hours to a voluntary gate constituted "development" under the Coastal Act that required a permit. If you read the law at issue and the facts of this case, I don't think Vinod's view that this was a "technicality" is totally unreasonable. 3. When he lost on the above, he appealed. Appealing a decision by a lower court that you disagree with is normal -- lower court decisions are often overturned. 4. You then have to consider why he lost the appeal. For example, the appellate court said one of his constitutional claims was not ripe, not necessarily wrong. Higher courts merely declined to hear the case.