So gay!!!

[sirkickyass]

Kicky: I don't believe questions of lack of jurisdiction can ever be "waived" however. Any such rulin is void ab initio, aint it?

Depends on the type of jurisdiction, but in this instance you are wrong.

You can't waive subject matter jurisdiction. That can be raised independently by the court all the way up to the Supreme Court level.

You can waive personal jurisdiction (and do automatically if it's not the first thing you contest), venue, and standing. Sometimes defendants strategically waive this requirements.

3. You say: "Two experts testifed on behalf of the defense side even though the state chose not to participate." Experts in what? Did they offer opinion testimony, or "factual" testimony?

Read the opinion. The answer is obvious.

4. Do you care to respond to other comments I have made about your unqualified claims that "factual" findings cannot be challenged on appeal?

I'm a lawyer, you're going to law school on wikipedia. I don't feel particularly threatened when you characterize my claims as "unqualified." Anyone that wants to do the legwork can.

I'll direct anyone who wants a broad view of why the opinion is structured the way it is and why it is more difficult to overturn than a straight law finding to this NYTimes article on the issue: https://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/06/us/06assess.html?_r=1&src=twt&twt=nytimes

I consider the matter closed here.

 

[sirkickyass]

No, I haven't, and I have no current intention of readin 136 pages about this.

In other words, you're bringing a knife to a gunfight.

 

[Hopper]

This is just a short summary of a study performed in Denmark regarding the causes of homosexuality. Nothing conclusive but interesting. [quotation of study omitted] For what it's worth...

Very interestin, Marcus. Just curious--would you (or you, Kicky) consider the conclusions in that report to be ones of "fact" or of "opinion?" I wonder if this study was "presented as evidence" in this recent prop 8 case, eh?

 

[sirkickyass]

I wonder if this study was "presented as evidence" in this recent prop 8 case, eh?

If you read the opinion you'd know.

Of course, if you'd read the opinion you'd also know that the causes of homosexuality weren't in issue at the case.

If you had the most basic understanding of the federal court system, you'd know that we're talking about legal conclusions vs. factual findings rather than facts vs. opinions.

Then again, you wouldn't be aint if all those things were true.

Sho'nuff.

 

[Hopper]

I'm a lawyer, you're going to law school on wikipedia. I don't feel particularly threatened when you characterize my claims as "unqualified." Anyone that wants to do the legwork can.

I consider the matter closed here.

Kicky, by unqualified I simply meant just that. You presented your claims as ABSOLUTE and UNQUALIFIED. This fallacious "IMMA BOTTOM-FEEDER, DAMMIT" argument from authority aint gunna fly except with those too weak to see through it. You can respond to the substance, or not. It wouldn't surprise me if you refuse to do so, but don't pretend that you have by asserting your supposed dispostitive expertise, eh?

You can consider the "matter closed" all you want. You always do as soon as you pronounce the answer (as you see it). Weak, sorry.

 

[Hopper]

In other words, you're bringing a knife to a gunfight.

Oh, and your're the big-*** gunfighter, eh, Kicky? None of the questions I've raised are intended to start a "fight," and few, if any, of them are dependent on what this one judge says in his personal opinion.

I wonder if you'll ever get over yourself, eh?

 

[sirkickyass]

Kicky, by unqualified I simply meant just that. You presented your claims as ABSOLUTE and UNQUALIFIED. This fallacious "IMMA BOTTOM-FEEDER, DAMMIT" argument from authority aint gunna fly except with those too weak to see through it. You can respond to the substance, or not. It wouldn't surprise me if you refuse to do so, but don't pretend that you have by asserting your supposed dispostitive expertise, eh?

You can consider the "matter closed" all you want. You always do as soon as you pronounce the answer (as you see it). Weak, sorry.

I would hardly say the statement was "unqualified" given that a) I've framed it as "harder to overrule" rather than "impossible to overrule" and b) provided in one post a variety of ways that the court conclude the other way.

I've also provided you a link to an article with quotes from a professor explaining the standard in this instance for challenging the fact findings as "obviously erroneous."

You have provided no substance that's responsive and have demonstrated repeatedly in a variety of threads that you know almost less than nothing about the law and legal procedures, including making blanket statements in this very thread like that jurisdictional issues can "never" (i.e. absolutely and without qualification) be waived.

You've given no evidence that any appeal would be "de novo" which is that basis upon which an appeal would have to undertaken in order to allow a "re-do" on all factual findings. You've not even claimed that defendants would be entitled to a de novo appeal.

At a certain point, you have to pay for legal education or I have to start billing you. As is, you're wasting my time arguing about an opinion that you haven't even read or apparently even looked at the table of contents because even that would have answered some of your questions.

 

[Hopper]

Kicky, by unqualified I simply meant just that. You presented your claims as ABSOLUTE and UNQUALIFIED. This fallacious "IMMA BOTTOM-FEEDER, DAMMIT" argument from authority aint gunna fly except with those too weak to see through it. You can respond to the substance, or not. It wouldn't surprise me if you refuse to do so, but don't pretend that you have by asserting your supposed dispostitive expertise, eh?

In particular, do you have any (substantive) response to this post?:

Factual testimony was the bulk of the hearing and that's what can't be challenged...if a reviewing court looks at the case they are stuck with the factual finding...

"You state this as an absolute, Kicky, but it aint, and you should know that. Are you just trying to fool someone into accepting the erroneous claim you make, that it?

If the judge had found as a supposed "fact" that "the moon is made of green cheese," the higher courts would by no means be "stuck with" a finding that "can't be challenged."

Furthermore, callin sumthin a "factual" findin don't make it one. If I find, as a "fact," that Ginger is more hotter than Mary Ann, it's still just a matter of opinion, know what I'm sayin?

 

[sirkickyass]

Oh, and your're the big-*** gunfighter, eh, Kicky? None of the questions I've raised are intended to start a "fight," and few, if any, of them are dependent on what this one judge says in his personal opinion.

I wonder if you'll ever get over yourself, eh?

Well I guess no one will ever accuse you of having a high level of film knowledge given you missed that one entirely.

 

[Hopper]

I would hardly say the statement was "unqualified" given that a) I've framed it as "harder to overrule" rather than "impossible to overrule"

No, that is NOT the way you presented it in the posts of yours which I've quoted.

I've also provided you a link to an article with quotes from a professor explaining the standard in this instance for challenging the fact findings as "obviously erroneous."

A quote from the article you cited, eh?:

"Even some of those who applauded the opinion, however, said the path ahead for it was not clear or easy. Doug NeJaime, an associate professor at Loyola Law School, Los Angeles, said that while he considered Judge Walker’s ruling “a great opinion,” he was skeptical that the strategy behind it would survive through the federal courts. Despite Judge Walker’s efforts to set a factual foundation and the traditions of deference, Mr. NeJaime said, the Supreme Court is not completely constrained by lower court findings of fact." We’ve seen time and time again that the Supreme Court can do whatever it wants” with the factual record, and “I don’t see five justices on the Supreme Court taking Judge Walker’s findings of fact to the place that he takes them.”

The "likely" conclusion, about what even the "liberal judges" are likely to do?:

Ultimately, Professor NeJaime said, even the four more liberal justices on the Court might shy away from a sweeping decision that could overturn same-sex marriage bans across the country. “The Supreme Court rarely likes to get too far ahead of things,” he said.

That's completely consistent with all I've really said on this topic, yet you pretend to have completely annhilated my observations based upon your claimed "legal expertise," eh, Kicky?

 

[sirkickyass]

No, that is NOT the way you presented in the posts of yours which I've quoted.

Your statement that I have never presented qualification is incorrect. In the original post I did not claim the decision was impossible to overrule either, merely that it was more difficult while giving the reason why it was more difficult than it otherwise would be.

Examples:

https://jazzfanz.com/showthread.php/1626-So-gay!!!?p=40533&viewfull=1#post40533

https://jazzfanz.com/showthread.php/1626-So-gay!!!?p=40511&viewfull=1#post40511

https://jazzfanz.com/showthread.php/1626-So-gay!!!?p=39557&viewfull=1#post39557 (this is the original post on this issue: note the use of words and phrases like "usually," "generally," "in that sense," etc. )

A quote from the article you cited

That is not inconsistent with my description of how the court could frame legal conclusions as factual ones, etc etc. The higher up portion of the article, which you have completely chosen to ignore, states the argument clearly and then provides the hedge, in the form of your quote below, that the court is unpredictable.

I don't know what your beef is, but this is yet another example of you losing every issue and making a semantic argument about a single ancillary issue in order to keep the debate alive, while everything you lose goes by the wayside (I'll note you've completely dropped your standing objections for example and now seem to be pretending they never happened.) This is one of many reasons you have the lowest reputation on the board. I frankly have better things to do.

Post less and please delete your account.

 

[Darkwing Duck]

Post less and please delete your account.

Well, if he did one of those things, the other would come as a (bonus?) side effect.