Hopper
Banned
Because, why? Because you feel "intervening parties" put forth a vigorous defense in this particular case, or for some other reason?
So gay!!!
- Thread starter TroutBum
- Start date
Because, why? Because you feel "intervening parties" put forth a vigorous defense in this particular case, or for some other reason?
G-O-A-T
Member
Yes. The intervening party put up the best fight that was available... and unless someone challenges this position with evidence to hint otherwise, I will continue to think this is a non issue.
Hopper
Banned
Well, OK, that's fine. As I said, I wasn't addressing myself to that (wasn't really even aware of it when I brought up the issue). I agree that there is no issue if they put up the best fight available.
davidbenoit
Well-Known Member
Man, you fellas need to put your efforts into the Jazz forum. It is slllllloooooowwwwwiinnnnn down over there.
Hopper
Banned
Well, Eric, we've been down this road before. I take you to be sayin, in effect, that "there is good evidence that homosexuality IS largely biological." Do I understand you correctly there?
If so, I wonder if you agree with the APA's claim that:
"There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles..."
https://www.apa.org/topics/sexuality/orientation.aspx (go to page 4)
Last edited:
Hopper
Banned
Goat, please understand that I am addressing this response in the abstract, and not with respect to how it applies in this particular case, or any other particular case. I'm looking at what appears to be a university law school's dissection of "Constitutional Limitations on the Judicial Power" imposed by article 3. At the top, in the "title" it clearly lists "Standing, Mootness, Ripeness, and Political Questions" as things to consider. However, if you look further, where the actual discussion occurs, "ripeness" is expanded to "RIPENESS/ADVERSENESS," suggesting that actual "adverseness" is a separate consideration. https://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/caseorcontroversy.htm
The discussion states, in part, that:
"Writing for the Court, Justice Frankfurter concluded that the plaintiffs failed to show the real threat of prosecution necessary to have their case heard. Frankfurter declared, "This Court cannot be umpire to debates concerning harmless, empty shadows." Four dissenters took strong issue with the Court's dismissal of the case. Dissenting Justice John Harlan concluded the suit was neither collusive nor too abstract for resolution, and that the threat of prosecution under the law was real."
The majority seemed to believe there was no "actual" controversy, and hence no real "adversaries" despite the fact that an arguably unconstitutional law was on the books ("the Court noted that no prosecution under the challenged law was pending, that only one prosecution had ever been brought under the law, and that contraceptives were openly sold in Connecticut drugstores").
So, it seems to me that the issue of an "actual controversy" is one that goes beyond the consideration of "standing, mootness, ripeness, and political questions" only. Know what I'm sayin?
The particular case discussed there (Poe v. Ullman, 1961) cites the Muskrat case and explicitly refers to "jurisdictional" questions, for example:
"The restriction of our jurisdiction to cases and controversies within the meaning of Article III of the Constitution, see Muskrat v. United States, 219 U.S. 346 , is not the sole limitation on the exercise of our appellate powers, especially in cases raising constitutional questions" https://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=367&invol=497.
Perhaps "jurisdiction" for article 3 purposes is not best described as "subject matter juridiction," I dunno, but, whatever, it seems to be a matter of jurisdiction, not merely "standing." The opinion goes on to note that: "...the adjudicatory process is most securely founded when it is exercised under the impact of a lively conflict between antagonistic demands, actively pressed, which make resolution of the controverted issue a practical necessity." (emphasis mine)....The Court has found unfit for adjudication any cause that "is not in any real sense adversary," that "does not assume the `honest and actual antagonistic assertion of rights' to be adjudicated - a safeguard essential to the integrity of the judicial process, and one which we have held to be indispensable to adjudication of constitutional questions by this Court." United States v. Johnson, 319 U.S. 302."
Maybe this gives you a better idea of why I disagreed with you when I said:
Then again, mebbe not, eh?
Addendum: After looking at this Poe case a little closer, it seems that they are suggesting that the "actual controversy" limitation upon judicial review may not be so much "jurisdictional" in the strict sense as it is a self-imposed limitation for the sake of good jurisprudence: "The Court [has] developed, for its own governance in the cases confessedly within its jurisdiction, a series of rules under which it has avoided passing upon a large part of all the constitutional questions pressed upon it for decision...The best teaching of this Court's experience admonishes us not to entertain constitutional questions in advance of the strictest necessity...This principle was given early application and has been recurringly enforced in the Court's refusal to entertain cases which disclosed a want of a truly adversary contest..." This particular language is kinda interspersed with portions I already quoted. Either way (i.e., whether or not the limitation is "jurisdictional") it seems to me that the court can, if it chooses, refuse to rule on a matter where there is no "honest and actual antagonistic assertion of rights" to be adjudicated" (actual controversy) even if it the challenging party has standing to litigate a non-moot issue which is "ripe" (under traditional analysis) for adjudication. In other words this in an additional ground for refusing to rule on a case, apart from, and in addition to, the other three.
Last edited:
Hopper
Banned
As for you, Kicky, I don't expect any kinda response from you to the "actual controversy" issue I just elaborated on for Goat's benefit. All I have come to expect from you is your ultimate resort to the assertion of your own brilliance as contrasted with the obvious idiocy of your opponent to "settle" all of your arguments. If you were 1/10th as smart as you like to pretend to be, you would make guys like Einstein look like they should be ridin the short bus.
That said, whether you want to "agree" with my characterizations or not in NO WAY determines that they are inaccurate, as you try to suggest, all while ducking the issue. I'm not gunna let it go at that, because I get tired of your misrepresentations.
Dee Brown had been tendered a qualifying offer. As per the "standard" CBA contract, the recited term was for "one year." However, in Brown's case, this "apparent" term was rendered illusory by a provision that the Jazz could terminate the contract any time, at will, for any reason, as they deemed fit.
Nonetheless certain posters were claimin that Brown had been offered a "one-year" contract, and were condemning him for not being satisfied and looking at his overseas options. To those posters, I noted that the "one year" aspect of the tendered offer was strictly illusory.
That's when you came runnin in, as you usually do if you think you have spotted some error, however slight, in any post I make, to try to ridicule me. You confused "illusory consideration" with "nominal" (stated) consideration and tole me the one year aspect was therefore not "illusory consideration." You were wrong, then and now. Soon your argument took the course that if the consideration were illusory, the contract would be void. Since it wasn't void, the consideration in question could not possibly be "illusory," you claimed.
In response I said that a valid contract could be supported if there were some non-illusory consideration EVEN IF some portion of the agreed upon consideration were illusory. In other words, while it was not an "all-or-nothing" proposition so far as an "enforceable" contract went, the "one year" promise was nonetheless illusory. You denied that this could be possible, all while informing every one that you were a bona fide "law student."
I really only bring it up because I have reason to believe that Goat is a bottom-feeder and will therefore understand the nature of your representations to him about me. Virtually no one else will, of course, leaving you free to mislead them by asserting how trained and brilliant you are.
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 365
Guest
Just a question, but if gay marriage is legalized on a national basis, won't then polygamy have to be legalized? Why or why not?
JJ Rage
Active Member
Polygamy as it stands right now is so deeply associated with fundamentalist Mormons, not to mention women being forced into marriage at a very early age, that I can't see polygamy entering into that conversation anytime soon.
Well, I base my opposition to bans on gay marriage on the idea that people should be free to associate with one another in any way they choose, so I would apply the same standard to polygamous marriage. In the end I don't understand why the government has an interest in regulating this issue. And before someone mentions getting married to their dog, all parties involved have to be capable of consenting (in the legal sense), so dogs and children are out of the running.
Hopper
Banned
Game, do you see any reason why the government is regulating "marriages" at all? I mean, why should someone need a "license" to get married, and why should the government get involved in "divorce proceedings?"
Well, I don't see any reason for the government to get involved in allowing this or that type of marriage. But keeping track of the contractual relationship that goes along with marriage is another thing.
I don't like having to have a license to do things, like fishing or hunting, or even driving, but I understand why they exist. In my perfect world they would not, but the world we live in is not "my perfect world" and the differences are so great that you really can't get there (to my perfect world) from here. So I understand that the government wants to keep track of whose getting married. Keeping track of marriages I consider to be ok, keeping control of it is not.
I made an earlier comment that the only relationship the government should recognize is a civil union. Basically what I'm saying is that the government only needs to keep track of the contracts people form in these types of relationships. The gender and number of participants isn't important, just the fact that a binding relationship has been formed (kicky, feel free to correct me if I use a term that has legal implications incorrectly).
The keeping track of these things becomes important when there is a dispute over common property. If the relationships is completely informal (we're married because we say we are) then sorting out what belongs to whom could be nearly impossible. I suppose marriages, or civil unions, could be done by private contract and only require a notary public seal to serve this purpose. That would be a lot closer to what I would consider ideal. In that case there would be little or no need for special divorce courts and specialized law pertaining to marriage, it would be a straight-up contract issue based on the agreement details that all parties signed.
I think that as things are it is necessary for a court to make determinations in any contested divorce. If they were not then it would be easy for one of the parties to take control of all the household property and send the other party onto the street empty handed and with no recourse. The government fills a legitimate role in enforcing contracts. No other entity can do it correctly, unless you would consider paid thugs to be a legitimate form of contract enforcement. If that's the case we can look to street gangs and drug cartels for guidance. They run multi-billion dollar, international enterprises completely outside any legal oversight, or legal contract enforcement.