So gay!!!

[sirkickyass]

G-O-A-T: It's not worth it. I went 30 pages with him once when he claimed that nonguaranteed contracts were invalid because they were illusory consideration.

He's locked in. He's not budging, no matter how ridiculous the position.

Aint: I will bet you every dollar in my bank account against your $5 and box of Camels that the case or controversy issue isn't even raised on appeal. That's because it's a total non-issue.

 

[Hopper]

But since there is no evidence of that, I don't see why you would even bring up the issue.

Well, Goat, see my subsequent posts, eh? I wasn't even claiming there was "collusion," more just an identity of interests. Again, the point is that in the rare circumstances where both sides want the same outcome, different considerations might be present. You noted what you would "typically" look for to determine if there was a "controversy," but we're not talkin about a "typical" case here.

 

[Hopper]

G-O-A-T: It's not worth it. I went 30 pages with him once when he claimed that nonguaranteed contracts were invalid because they were illusory consideration.

Wrong, Kicky, I never claimed a whole contract would be invalid just because a portion of the consideration was illusory. That was never my position, no matter how much you tried to misrepresent my position as such. My point was a simple one about the nature of illusory consideration, a point which you erroneously denied. You then tried to act like the "whole argument" was about something else, knowing (after I pointed out to the reasons to you) that you could not possibly defend your original claim.

 

[C l u t c H 385]

i prefer my contracts to be illusory.

 

[sirkickyass]

I'm not going to get into a he-said, she-said when all the evidence has been obliterated. It's an example of how unmovable you are. Obviously I disagree with your characterization.

In any event G-O-A-T, aint is a prime example of why all states have licensing requirements and why most federal courts have special clerks designed to deal with pro-se litigants. I did that for a summer once (after aint was banned from the old board) and it was like looking in the wayback machine to all of aint's arguments.

 

[One Brow]

As a theoretical matter, no, Eric, cost is absolutely irrelevant. If you had to completely bankrupt the whole country, and thereby forever after relegate it to the status of a third world banana republic, just to make sure that one guy got "equal treatment" then, in theory, you should do that. But, in pratice, all these decisions consider the likely consequences from a pragmatic standpoint too, ya know?

Pragmatic, perhaps. That does not imply money, though. For example, Brown vs. Board of Education did not demand immediate integration due to pragmatic concerns, but did not address monetary concerns.

More to the point, since we have no dollar figure on the costs of supporting a marriage, there is no pragmatic concern here, no matter how often you pull the term "billions" from your ***.

Ultimately, it will be the votes of the Supreme Court that decides and the decision will be determinative whether you, I, or anyone else likes it or not.

If they grant cert.

Any belief on this question, one way or the other, seems to be largely a matter of choice. It is hardly a circumtance which has been scientifically proven.

Since science is not in the business of proof, you could also say that gravitation has not been scientifically proven. That does not make the issue a matter of choice, or say there is good evidence on both sides. There is no good evidence that homosexuality is largely non-biological.

This is just a short summary of a study performed in Denmark regarding the causes of homosexuality. Nothing conclusive but interesting.

I've read up on the Denmark study before. I's population were primarily kids who would have been born before homosexual marriage was legalized, and many of them into marriages that included one or more homosexuals. There was no effort to remove that influence from the study, so there is no evidence that the effects are not biological.

Well, Goat, see my subsequent posts, eh? I wasn't even claiming there was "collusion," more just an identity of interests.

Even that claim is false. The people defending the law were highly motivated to keep it from being overturned.

 

[Hopper]

i prefer my contracts to be illusory.

The more illusory, the more better, eh, Clutch! At least if yo the one "givin" rather than "receivin" the illusory consideration, anyways.

 

[G-O-A-T]

Well, Goat, see my subsequent posts, eh? I wasn't even claiming there was "collusion," more just an identity of interests.

I would still suggest that a case could, on it's surface, present the appearance of a "controversy" yet still be the product of deceptive collusion.

I wasn't just pulling the "collusion" explanation out of my ***...

You noted what you would "typically" look for to determine if there was a "controversy," but we're not talkin about a "typical" case here.

If I was trying to determine whether there was a "case or controversy" I would look to see whether 3 requirements were met: (1) Standing (Injury / cause / redressability), (2) Ripeness, and (3) Mootness.

Don't see the word typically anywhere in my quote... and just to make myself clear... if I were trying to do a case or controversy analysis, I would use this analysis EVERY time... except if it looked like a political question (then I would do a political question analysis ON TOP OF EVERYTHING ELSE)

I really didn't want to make a post just nit picking on word usage... but since you brought it on...

 

[Hopper]

Even that claim is false. The people defending the law were highly motivated to keep it from being overturned.

You're overlooking the qualifications I made, eh, Eric?

"The defendants declared that they were in favor of the position advocated by the plaintiffs. They WANTED prop 8 to be declared unconstitutional. Given that, and no more (such as intervening parties), where's the controversy? Even though they weren't the "same person" (they weren't the same person in Muskrat, either), they had identical interests."

This started with me quoting the portion of the judge's opinion which stated that the defendants chose not to defend. As to those two sets of "parties" (plaintiffs and defendants), at least, there appeared to be an indentity of interests. The Governor openly claimed he wanted the same outcome as the plaintiffs. I wasn't addressing the issue of intervening parties at the time and I said I hadn't, and didn't intend to, read the decision. So I wasn't making "false" claims, as you say, eh?

 

[Hopper]

I wasn't just pulling the "collusion" explanation out of my ***...

I didn't try to suggest that you were. Yes, I brought it up, but only to point out ONE possible circumstance were the existence of an "actual controversy" might be an issue.

Don't see the word typically anywhere in my quote... and just to make myself clear... if I were trying to do a case or controversy analysis, I would use this analysis EVERY time...

OK, so I guess you're saying that you would not see the non-existence of an "actual controversy" to EVER be relevant. I would, but that's not to say you are wrong.

Did you see what I was getting at when I suggested that cases where a defendant's attorney showed no real interest in defending his client might raise questions about the validity of the resulting conviction?

 

[G-O-A-T]

Did you see what I was getting at when I suggested that cases where a defendant's attorney showed no real interest in defending his client might raise questions about the validity of the resulting conviction?

Absolutely... I just don't see why you brought it up in relation to the prop 8 case... unless you were trying to stir up a non-issue.

In any event G-O-A-T, aint is a prime example of why all states have licensing requirements and why most federal courts have special clerks designed to deal with pro-se litigants. I did that for a summer once (after aint was banned from the old board) and it was like looking in the wayback machine to all of aint's arguments.

 

[Hopper]

More to the point, since we have no dollar figure on the costs of supporting a marriage, there is no pragmatic concern here, no matter how often you pull the term "billions" from your ***.

Eric, I fail to follow the leap you make from (1) since I have no "dollar figure," then (2) there ARE NO pragmatic concerns.