So gay!!!

[Hopper]

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.

Well, I will take your word for that, and that might eliminate the "no controversy" argument, I dunno. I merely quoted the judge's decision where he noted that the "defendants" did not defend. If a court wants to interject some unnamed defendant to argue for the "real" defendants, that still raises some question about the adequacy of the defense, if you ask me.

But, assuming that this ruling was not a COMPLETE result of collusion, that still doesn't make "standing" equivalent to a lack of controversy in the general sense.

 

[sirkickyass]

If a court wants to interject some unnamed defendant to argue for the "real" defendants, that still raises some question about the adequacy of the defense, if you ask me.

You have no clue what you're talking about. A party voluntarily "intervened" to defend. That party was composed of the original proponents of Prop 8.

The court did not "interject some unnamed defendant" into the proceedings.

It's obvious you did no research into the subject before making the claim.

 

[Hopper]

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

The basics:

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

Again, you either misread or misrepresented the wiki article. Injury, causation, and redressability are the sub-components of STANDING itself, not sub-components of jurisdiction in a broader sense and they are certainly not the "sub-components" of the question of the existence of an ACTUAL CONTROVERSY.

 

[sirkickyass]

Again, you either misread or misrepresented the wiki article.

You're right aint. I was really using the wiki article as the source of my understanding. These were all new concepts to me.

 

[Hopper]

You're right aint. I was really using the wiki article as the source of my understanding. These were all new concepts to me.

Typical non sequitur from you, eh, Kicky?

 

[G-O-A-T]

This was a fun thread to catch up on...

FYI Hopper, Kicky is right... at least according to my eduMcation

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.

As for subject matter jurisdiction (different issue), this is a pretty easy requirement to determine in federal court... you either litigate a federal question (US constitution or federal statute violation) or you meet the diversity requirements (not applicable here).

In the prop 8 case, the gay couple had standing, the case was ripe, and the case was not moot - therefore there was a "case or controversy". As for SMJ, this was a question of whether the 14th amendment was violated - therefore, there was a federal question, and thus SMJ was satisfied.

As I see it, you are either trying to make an issue out of nothing or trying to advocate a revolutionary new line of "case or controversy" analysis.

 

[Hopper]

This was a fun thread to catch up on...

As I see it, you are either trying to make an issue out of nothing or trying to advocate a revolutionary new line of "case or controversy" analysis.

Well, Goat, I don't see where it's revolutionary, really. According to wiki, the supreme court dismissed a case back in 1923 on the grounds that there was no "actual controversy."

The explanation is that the attorney's fees of both sides were bein paid by the treasury department, and hence no real "conflict" or "controversy" existed and the action was merely the equivalent of seeking an "advisory opinion."

Exactly how all this fits in with the established remedy of a "declaratory judgment" is not immediately clear, but it doesn't seem all that clearcut, ya know?

 

[G-O-A-T]

I noticed you brought that case up, but I thought Kicky did a good job of distinguishing that case from the prop 8 case.

I'm not familiar with Muskrat beyond your quote, but according to that quote, I'm thinking that the reason there was no case or controversy was because there was no standing (redressability failed). If you sue yourself and win... and are ordered to pay $10,000 to yourself... you sort of don't come out any better or worse off whether you win or lose.

The prop 8 plaintiff and defendant were NOT the same person, nor were they being supported by the same person... therefore Muskrat is not applicable.

 

[Hopper]

I noticed you brought that case up, but I thought Kicky did a good job of distinguishing that case from the prop 8 case.

Well, Goat, as I've said all along, I wasn't really trying to decide the issue in this case. Just noting that Article 3 required an "actual controversy" and noting the judge's claim that the defendants chose not to defend. My point was that those circumstances would seem to raise questions, not that the questions had no conceivable answer.

 

[Hopper]

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. If it were collusive, and the court knew it, I don't think the court would have jurisdiction to pretend to "rule" on the issue, simply because there was no ACTUAL controversy. Do you disagree with that, Goat?

 

[Hopper]

The prop 8 plaintiff and defendant were NOT the same person, nor were they being supported by the same person... therefore Muskrat is not applicable.

I'm not sure the "therefore" follows. 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.

Similar, but not identical, questions about the reliability of a finding or judgment have been raised in other circumstances. I've heard of many criminal convictions being reversed simply because the defendant's lawyer presented an inadequate defense, for example.

 

[G-O-A-T]

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. If it were collusive, and the court knew it, I don't think the court would have jurisdiction to pretend to "rule" on the issue, simply because there was no ACTUAL controversy. Do you disagree with that, Goat?

I had a feeling you were going to go there next... with the collusion questioning...

Yes, it is strange that the state chose not to defend the case... very strange IMO. So strange that it tells me the California AG (attorney general) knew the case was so bad that he could not defend it in good faith.

Lawyers are ethically bound to NOT take cases that they don't feel they can competently argue. In other words, this case is so bad that not even the California AG, who is probably a pretty smart guy, could come up with a rational argument to support the constitutionality of prop 8.

Now... if he HAD taken the case, there might be a valid collusion argument, but since a 3rd party (who believed in and advocated the position) intervened to defend the case, the whole collusion theory disappears... unless of course you can show that the defendants were in fact trying to throw the case. But since there is no evidence of that, I don't see why you would even bring up the issue.