So gay!!!

[Hopper]

(I'll note you've completely dropped your standing objections for example and now seem to be pretending they never happened.)

Post less and please delete your account.

Wrong on all counts.

1. To begin with, I NEVER raised any "standing" issues, notwithstanding the fact that you tried to pretend I did.

2. Likewise, I NEVER raised any issues of "personal jurisdiction," even though you tried to pretend I did.

The issues I raised pertained to SUBJECT MATTER (not personal) jurisdiction based upon the "cases and controversies" clause of the constitution and subsquent interpretations of that clause. A court has NO JURISDICTION to "decide" cases where there is no actual controversy and this is not a problem that a plaintiff can waive by not objecting to "standing" or lack of subject matter jurisdiction, as you claimed. "Standing" doesn't have a damn thing to do with it, as you would know if you had any kinda competence in law, I spoze.

Since you don't seem to know the difference between issues of standing and subject matter jurisdiction, let me help you out a little. I can't sue you for hitting a friend of mine because I didn't like it. I have no "standing" to sue you for that. My friend does, but I don't.

If a justice of the peace is NOT authorized to adjudicate matters involving felonies, any attempt he makes to do so will be void from the outset, with or without any objection from the parties in front of him about his lack of jurisdiction.

Two totally separate concepts.

 

[Hopper]

That is not inconsistent with my description of how the court could frame legal conclusions as factual ones, etc etc.

Nor does it acknowledge, let alone address, my prior observation than an attempt to "frame" legal conclusions as "factual ones" is merely an exercise in sophistry which is in no way binding upon appellate courts.

 

[moevillini]

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

Homosexuality Influenced by Childhood Family Situation
Linda Ames Nicolosi

A major study is about to be published in the prestigious peer-reviewed journal, Archives of Sexual Behavior, which provides striking new evidence for the influence of childhood family factors on sexual-orientation development.

The study used a population-based sample of 2,000,355 native-born Danes between the ages of 18 and 49. Denmark - a country noted for its tolerance of a wide variety of alternative lifestyles, including homosexual partnerships, and the first country to legalize gay marriage.

With access to the "virtually complete registry coverage of the entire Danish population," the study sample therefore lacked the problematic selection bias that has plagued many previous studies on sexual orientation.

Parental Influences on Sexual Orientation Development

The authors conclude: "Our study provides population-based, prospective evidence that childhood family experiences are important determinants of heterosexual and homosexual marriage decisions in adulthood."

Assuming that people who marry heterosexually are almost always heterosexual - especially in a country where homosexuality carries little stigma, and gay marriage is legal - and people who marry homosexually can be presumed to be homosexual, the study's findings offer intriguing evidence about family factors separating homosexual from heterosexual persons.

The following are findings from this new data:

-Men who marry homosexually are more likely to have been raised in a family with unstable parental relationships - particularly, absent or unknown fathers and divorced parents.

-Findings on women who marry homosexually were less pronounced, but were still associated with a childhood marked by a broken family. The rates of same-sex marriage "were elevated among women who experienced maternal death during adolescence, women with short duration of parental marriage, and women with long duration of mother-absent cohabitation with father."

-Men and women with "unknown fathers" were significantly less likely to marry a person of the opposite sex than were their peers with known fathers.

-Men who experienced parental death during childhood or adolescence "had significantly lower heterosexual marriage rates than peers whose parents were both alive on their 18th birthday. The younger the age of the father's death, the lower was the likelihood of heterosexual marriage."

-"The shorter the duration of parental marriage, the higher was the likelihood of homosexual marriage...homosexual marriage rates were 36% and 26% higher among men and women, respectively, who experienced parental divorce after less than six years of marriage, than among peers whose parents remained married for all 18 years of childhood and adolescence."

-"Men whose parents divorced before their 6th birthday were 39% more likely to marry homosexually than peers from intact parental marriages."

-"Men whose cohabitation with both parents ended before age 18 years had significantly (55% -76%) higher rates of homosexual marriage than men who cohabited with both parents until 18 years."

-The mother's age was directly linked to the likelihood of homosexual marriage among men - the older the mother, the more likely her son was to marry another man. Also, "only children" were more likely to be homosexual.

-Persons born in large cities were significantly more likely to marry a same-sex partner - suggesting that cultural factors might also affect the development of sexual orientation.

"Whatever ingredients determine a person's sexual preferences and marital choices," conclude the study's authors, "our population-based study shows that parental interactions are important."

("Childhood Family Correlates of Heterosexual and Homosexual Marriages: A National Cohort Study of Two Million Danes," by Morten Frisch and Anders Hviid, Archives of Sexual Behavior Oct 13, 2006; [E-publication ahead of print])

For what it's worth...

So, in other words, heterosexuality is a LEARNED behavior. Children who grow up in environments where they lack the opportunity to learn those relationships, have a greater tendency to fall back on natural, biological urges and therefore may lean more towards homosexuality.

 

[sirkickyass]

The issues I raised pertained to SUBJECT MATTER (not personal) jurisdiction based upon the "cases and controversies" clause of the constitution and subsquent interpretations of that clause. A court has NO JURISDICTION to "decide" cases where there is no actual controversy and this is not a problem that a plaintiff can waive by not objecting to "standing" or lack of subject matter jurisdiction, as you claimed. "Standing" doesn't have a damn thing to do with it, as you would know if you had any kinda competence in law, I spoze.

Aint, this whole line of argument is embarassing for you and displays that you don't have a damn idea what you're talking about.

You say that standing and the "case or controversy clause" are entirely unrelated. Even the wikipedia article on the case and controversy clause states:

The Court and legal scholars commonly refer to the issue of whether a "case or controversy" exists as the concept of standing.

You're completely whiffing on the basics.

When you make a "case or controversy" claim, you're stating an objection as to the plaintiff's standing. That is different than subject matter jurisdiction.

I've given you multiple reasons in a post above why the requirements for standing have been met with explicit delineations between this case and a case you cited without reading. You've advanced not a single answer.

Standing, and a number of other jurisdictional issues, are waivable (in some instances, including this one. A defendant couldn't waive "mootness" as a standing objection for instance.)

Subject matter jurisdiction is not waivable.

You have not raised an argument regarding subject matter jurisdiction to the case at hand, nor could one raise an SMJ claim by citing the case or controversy portion of the constitution.

Aint, I wouldn't come into your place of business (if you have one) and pretend to know more about your profession than you do, particularly if my two sources of information were wikipedia and my own ***. Please extend the same courtesy.

In the alternative, delete your account.

 

[Hopper]

Aint, this whole line of argument is embarassing for you and displays that you don't have a damn idea what you're talking about.

You say that standing and the "case or controversy clause" are entirely unrelated. Even the wikipedia article on the case and controversy clause states:

The Court and legal scholars commonly refer to the issue of whether a "case or controversy" exists as the concept of standing.

You're completely whiffing on the basics.

No, I'm not. The wiki article you quote also allows to to CLICK ON the word "standing" to get an explanation of what it means. The definition there is inconsistent with the claim about what "courts and legal scholars" refer to. It says:

"In law, standing or locus standi is the term for the ability of a party to demonstrate to the court sufficient connection to and harm from the law or action challenged to support that party's participation in the case. In the United States, the current doctrine is that a person cannot bring a suit challenging the constitutionality of a law unless the plaintiff can demonstrate that the plaintiff is (or will imminently be) harmed by the law. Otherwise, the court will rule that the plaintiff "lacks standing" to bring the suit, and will dismiss the case without considering the merits of the claim of unconstitutionality. To have a court declare a law unconstitutional, there must be a valid reason for the lawsuit. The party suing must have something to lose in order to sue unless they have automatic standing by action of law."

THAT'S what "standing"refers to.

Subject matter jurisdiction is a totally different issue. With respect to the "case or controversy" clause, wiki specially says:
"The Case or Controversy Clause of Article III of the United States Constitution (found in Art. III, Section 2, Clause 1) has been deemed to impose a requirement that United States federal courts are not permitted to hear cases that do not pose an actual controversy — that is, an actual dispute between adverse parties which is capable of being resolved by the court. "

A court is "not permitted to hear" cases which do not pose an actual controversy. That is a question of subject matter juridiction, not "standing." According to wiki:

"Subject-matter jurisdiction is the authority of a court to hear cases of a particular type or cases relating to a specific subject matter. For instance, bankruptcy court only has the authority to hear bankruptcy cases.

Subject-matter jurisdiction must be distinguished from personal jurisdiction, which is the power of a court to render a judgment against a particular defendant, and territorial jurisdiction, which is the power of the court to render a judgment concerning events that have occurred within a well-defined territory. Unlike personal or territorial jurisdiction, lack of subject-matter jurisdiction cannot be waived. A judgment from a court that did not have subject-matter jurisdiction is forever a nullity."

Loose and imprecise use of language CANNOT, and DOES NOT, reduce the two conceptually distinct concepts of "standing" vs. "subject matter jurisdiction" to the same thing. Again, if you had any kinda legal competence you would know this. Perhaps you do know this, but prefer to resort to sophistical tactics which are intended to give the appearance that an erroneous claim is accurate, I dunno.

 

[Hopper]

There is simply no question that the homosexuals bringing the case had "standing" to do so. But, in light of the defendants' refusal to defend, an argument can be made that there was no "actual dispute between adverse parties." If that argument is accepted, then the court had no subject matter jurisdiction over the case, EVEN though the plaintiffs unquestionably had "standing" to bring the suit.

 

[sirkickyass]

Aint: Case or controversy is about standing. This isn't debatable. It's the way it is.

The standing wiki page also clearly draws the line between standing and the case and controversy clause, so I'm certain why you believe they are inconsistent:

There are a number of requirements that a plaintiff must establish to have standing before a federal court. Some are based on the case or controversy requirement of the judicial power of Article Three of the United States Constitution, § 2, cl.1. As stated there, "The Judicial Power shall extend to all Cases . . .[and] to Controversies . . ."

Of course, you would have had to go down to the part of the article that's under "United States" to get there so I know that might have been too much reading for you.

You define subject matter jurisdiction correctly enough, but then miss the disconnect. While a court can only hear certain types of cases (i.e. federal courts can't hear cases originating in a single state that relates only to state law) that is a separate consideration entirely from whether or not standing exists. The case or contoversy requirement goes to standing.

You're getting confused because you're trying to go to law school on the internet, but this is seriously the first week of civil procedure.

The basics:

Standing requires three things:

1) An actual case or controversy
2) Ripeness
3) Lack of mootness

The actual case or controversy requirement has three sub-components 1) Injury in fact to the complaining party (unless an exception applies), 2) Causation, and 3) Redressability.

Subject Matter jurisdiction in federal courts, broadly, relates to whether or not the case presents 1) a federal question, 2) falls under diversity jurisdiction, 3) or is otherwise authorized to be heard by a federal court by statute or constitutional structure (i.e. federal courts are mandated to have original jurisdiction).

The case or controversy requirement, again, relates to standing, not to SMJ.

Stop trying to go to law school on the internet. You're just wrong here.

 

[Hopper]

Aint, I wouldn't come into your place of business (if you have one) and pretend to know more about your profession than you do, particularly if my two sources of information were wikipedia and my own ***. Please extend the same courtesy.

So, as long as he's in "your" place of business" not even a 100 law professors could reasonably disagree with your idiosyncratic interpretation of the constitution, eh, Kicky?

You don't have to attend law school to be able to read, and understand, law books and legal concepts, sorry. I venture to guess that I have spent more time in prison law libraries than you have breathing. I would also bet that, in my career, I have made more as a "legal expert," with payments being made in the form of a couple of cartons of Camel cigarettes for an entire appeal, than you have in your brief legal career, eh, Kicky?

 

[sirkickyass]

There is simply no question that the homosexuals bringing the case had "standing" to do so. But, in light of the defendants' refusal to defend, an argument can be made that there was no "actual dispute between adverse parties." If that argument is accepted, then the court had no subject matter jurisdiction over the case, EVEN though the plaintiffs unquestionably had "standing" to bring the suit.

The original proponents of prop 8 intervened and defended the suit. You would know this if you had read the opinion. But you didn't. An actual case or controversy exists, both sides were independent of the other, and both put on evidence.

Even if no one had intervened and that the state simply declined to appear to defend the suit that would not trigger a lack of subject matter jurisdiction. That would trigger a "default judgment." Otherwise any defendant could seek to invalidate a court judgment simply by not showing up, then claiming the court that found against him in his absence lacked jurisdiction because he didn't put up a fight.

Basically, not showing up doesn't create a situation where there was "no dispute." It's like forfeiting.

 

[sirkickyass]

So, as long as he's in "your" place of business" not even a 100 law professors could reasonably disagree with your idiosyncratic interpretation of the constitution, eh, Kicky?

You don't have to attend law school to be able to read, and understand, law books and legal concepts, sorry. I venture to guess that I have spent more time in prison law libraries than you have breathing. I would also bet that, in my career, I have made more as a "legal expert," with payments being made in the form of a couple of cartons of Camel cigarettes for an entire appeal, than you have in your brief legal career, eh, Kicky?

If what you're saying is that you're a "jailhouse lawyer," I'll let that stand on its own as a statement of your "expertise."

I won't venture to try and restate my compensation in cartons of Camels, but I assure you that I've made more than a "couple cartons of Camels."

 

[Hopper]

The standing wiki page also clearly draws the line between standing and the case and controversy clause, so I'm certain why you believe they are inconsistent:

The wiki article says this about the clause: "This clause, in addition to setting out the scope of the jurisdiction of the federal judiciary, prohibits courts from issuing advisory opinions, or from hearing cases that are either unripe, meaning that the controversy has not arisen yet, or moot, meaning that the controversy has already been resolved."

Ripeness and mootness, are concepts DISTINCT from the "scope of jurisdiction."

Of course, you would have had to go down to the part of the article that's under "United States" to get there so I know that might have been too much reading for you.

I have quoted you wiki's explication of the concept of "standing" at length, and it says nuthin about ripeness or mootness, or, for that matter, "subject matter jurisdiction." The wiki article was written by a bottom feeder, no doubt, just one who doesn't agree with you, that's all.

The actual case or controversy requirement has three sub-components 1) Injury in fact to the complaining party (unless an exception applies), 2) Causation, and 3) Redressability.

The article refers to these things, BUT not for the reasons you're claiming. Injury, causation and redressability are NOT "sub-components of" the case or controversy requirement, not according to this article, anyway. The Muskrat case did NOT address the lack of those "sub-components" but merely the lack of an "actual controversy." According to wiki: "Muskrat v. United States, 219 U.S. 346 (1911)[1], is a case that appears in virtually every constitutional law casebook published, because of its delineation of the authority of United States federal courts to hear certain kinds of cases."

The "authority to hear cases" is question of subject matter jurisdiction NOT a question of "injury, causation, and redressability." The courts do NOT have jurisdiction to hear cases where the treasury department pays the legal fees of both parties because a true controversy is lacking. The two are related in certain ways, perhaps, but the "case and controversy" requirement is clearly distinct from the question of individual standing as a separate concept.

You could have every appearance of injury, causation, and redressability, but still not have an ACTUAL controversy if both sides want the same outcome.

In this case, the Governor, a "defaulting" defendant, praised the outcome. There was no "controversy," as far as he was concerned.

 

[sirkickyass]

Clutch_385, you just took the bar exam. Care to opine?

I mean, this is pretty ridiculous.

Aint: We're at the point that you're so obviously wrong to anyone who knows something about the subject that you're beyond worth responding to. It's like trying to explain to someone that a three point shot is worth three points while they repeatedly cite a sentence that a field goal is worth two points.

If you want to really learn about this here's a link to a basic primer.

https://www.amazon.com/Procedure-Examples-Explanations-Joseph-Glannon/dp/0735570337