So gay!!!

[Hopper]

You have never responded to the substance of the question, Goat. I thought bottom-feeders were expected to think, not simply recite, without any attempt to analyze or understand, black-letter "rules" of law. My bad, if I'm wrong about that, eh?

I have seen people who can read, and therefore supposedly "understand," claim that the biblical proscription that "Thou shall not kills" proves such propositions as:

1. It is a sin to eat a T-bone steak

2. It is a sin to try to shoot down a Japanese plane dive-bombing Pearl Harbor, and

3. Other such "understandings."

But, in my book, if you don't understand the underlying rationale for, and therefore the limitations on it's application, a "rule," then you don't understand the rule, even if you can recite it.


The closest thing I can detect to a substantive response is this claim:

FYI, prop 8 wasn't friendly.

FYI, "prop 8" isn't a court case or controversy, either.

 

[TroutBum]

Gays.


Discuss.

 

[moevillini]

How bout we discuss gaze?

 

[moevillini]

this is quaint:

FIRST GAZE by John C. Sparks
June 1996

Misty eyes behold your small glowing face,
Both fruit of the womb and seed of this man.
New hope has arrived that folds in my hand
As I gaze unchallenged by time or space!--
Such marvelous structure woven as lace,
Wee form so precise and molded to plan,
Wondrously crafted from potent white sand,
All marks of God's spirit within your vase!

Do you sense tomorrows my little one;
What duty does Designer have in store?
How will you allot your span in the sun;
Will the world be better that was before?
This father's reflection holding our son,
As he starts his journey via life's door.

Dedicated to Robert (7 Sept 1973) and Curtis (23 April 1980)

 

[G-O-A-T]

You have never responded to the substance of the question, Goat. I thought bottom-feeders were expected to think, not simply recite, without any attempt to analyze or understand, black-letter "rules" of law. My bad, if I'm wrong about that, eh?

I'm sorry if my explanation of why appellate standing wont affect trial court standing in this case seemed like black letter law to you... but I assure you that it wasn't. And I'm sorry that I didn't understand exactly what underlying principal it was you were trying to get at... but I'm just not that smart I guess.

Standing took all but 30 seconds of time to discuss in Con Law... because it's about that hard to understand. And there are about 5 pages in this thread worth of standing / justiciability / jurisdiction discussion... all of which you intermittently claim do not apply to the prop 8 case - the case that is the basis of this thread.

I doubt that anyone on this board but you wants to read or discuss hypothetical standing questions... and I'm starting to feel like a gigantic douchebag entertaining your desire to "discuss" or should I say trying to prove me wrong. If you want to talk hypothetical legalese start a new topic or cross your fingers that someone else takes over this "discussion"

Your earlier comment about how you didn't call me out or suggest that standing was an issue with the prop 8 case is a microcosm of your whole discussion on the issue... you make a statement, you twist and omit facts, and then you try drive the discussion to places that make no sense.

With that said, I look forward to more wonderful discussions in the hypothetical legal discussion thread. See you there.

 

[Hopper]

Standing took all but 30 seconds of time to discuss in Con Law... because it's about that hard to understand.

Hmmm, kinda makes me wonder where you went to law school, eh, Goat? Thousands of pages of court opinions and decisions have been written about the subtleties of Article III, and lengthy legal treatises (books) on the topic have been written as well. If either you or your law professors think you got a complete understanding of it in 30 seconds, well....


I guess everything is "simple" for a simpleton, eh? Not sayin you're a simpleton, just sayin....

 

[G-O-A-T]

Yeah Hopper, your right, standing is more complicated than I imply... but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that it's not the savior that is going to save prop 8 as you have implied it could be.

Oh, and FYI... there's plenty of pages worth of legal opinion on the constitutionality of interracial marriage, but is that really a concept that is difficult to understand?

 

[Hopper]

Goat, this whole pretense of a "show trial" supposedly finding facts that are probably just opinions, when both plaintiffs and defendants want the same result, is what I find kinda disturbing. Why didn't the governor just file a declaratory relief action if he wanted to avoid his oath of upholding and defending the constitution? Did you read wiki's summary of the Nebraska case? Everybody and his brother filed a brief in that case, but no one pretended that matters of "fact," as opposed to questions of law, were involved.


If "facts" are indeed important, then any accepted "facts" should be arrived at through an adversarial process, or at least so the courts seem to think when it comes to article III limitations on the exercise of federal judicial power.

 

[Hopper]

Kicky, and others, have argued that this was a very sound and clever legal ploy used by an activist judge to attempt to "bind" the supreme court to accept his opinion. It aint gunna work on that basis, and it aint "clever;" it's merely a transparent attempt to unfairly "stack the deck," if you ask me. Do these politically motivated people feel any need to put the slightest restraints involving honesty and decency on their attempts to forcibly implement their political agenda? Sometimes I wonder, ya know?

By the way, I have NEVER implied that I thought the "standing" issue was, or was gunna be, necessary to "save" prop 8. It's simply another question that gets raised when a "defendant" refuses to defend because he wants the same result as the plaintiff. The courts certainly don't need to rely on standing issues to dispose of attempts to overturn voter initiatives, as has been amply demonstrated in the Nebraska case, for one.

I also find it utterly hypocritical for the trial judge to contend that his ruling cannot be appealed by the only parties who made any attempt whatsover to present a case opposing his pre-established conclusions. Why did he even think he had a "controversy" before him if those parties don't even have standing (in his view) to appeal his decision?

As I said at the outset (an observation to which you have never responded) this view would seem to say that collusive suits where the defendant "defaults" to achieve an end desired by him, too, are totally beyond challenge. That would definitely be contradictory to the Supreme Court's holdings on the topic, wouldn't it?

 

[Archie Moses]

Watch out! Moe had a double post in this thread before anyone else posted, and she didn't quote anyone. What a troll, eh?

 

[Hopper]

As I've already pointed out, this wasn't what happened. The state didn't feel they could adequately defend the case so the let prop 8 proponents defend the case - a group that was adverse to the plaintiff.

I don't think that was the case here, and yourself suggest as much below. The state didn't say it "couldn't" defend, Scharzenegger said he didn't want to even TRY to defend, because he agreed with the plaintiffs' position as a personal/political matter. Not be able to do something, and refusing to do something, are entirely different things. Certainly the 1972 Supreme Court ruling and the Nebraska cases (ALONE) gave them PLENTY of legal ammuntion if they wanted to use it. They didn't.

First, in that case both parties agreed on all the facts, therefore there was no need to have a trial to determine facts.

I haven't looked at the case, but in Wiki it says they agreed that it was a question of law, not a question of fact. That is NOT a case where facts are in dispute, and agreement is therefore expected. In that case, in addition to the ACLU and the two homosexual organization who brought the suit, "Amicus briefs were filed opposing Initiative Measure 416 by, among others, the National Association of Social Workers, the American Psychological Association, and Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays," according to wiki. Apparently no one argued that the case needed to be remanded for factual findings. Did Judge Vaughn Walker "see it differently?" Apparently so. We'll see how valid the appellate courts think that idiosyncratic view is, I spoze.

Irregardless, it doesn't really matter, because Walker isn't bound by the 8th circuit. He didn't see any rational relationship (just as I don't) and he made his decision.

He was "bound" to consider the U.S. Supreme Court's 1972 decision, on the merits, that a suit claiming that state discrimination against gay marriage violated the 14th amendment presented "no substantial federal question," wasn't he? According to the reports, he refused to even acknowledge the existence of that case, or any others incorporating rulings in opposition to his.

And as to the whole appeals thing, it would make no difference at all if the state had defended the case at trial or not. The state is the only party who can appeal (probably)... and if they don't want to appeal they don't have to. It wasn't some sort of collusion on the part of the judge to prevent an appeal, it is simply the fact that the state doesn't support an appeal and isn't required to.

Despite me having stated it several times, you still totally miss (or should I say "ignore"?) the point. No use trying further to get you to acknowledge the issue, I would guess.

Remember, it was voter's who put the marriage ban into the constitution, not state officials... state officials have never supported this law, and if they don't want to waste state resources defending what they don't believe in, then more power to them. If you don't like it then vote them out next election.

You act as though this is strictly a political issue, fully within the discretion of executive officials. It aint. But if it was, wouldn't that be just another reason why it is not "justiciable" by federal courts?

 

[Hopper]

My personal view of this case probably parallels the one expressed by the married homosexual analyst I quoted very early in this thread, i.e., that this is an extremely risky, and therefore probably ill-advised, attempt by a gay judge to cram his personal views down the whole country's throat. He appears to be anxious to force a "show-down" with the Supreme Court, and he is demanding a final JUDICIAL determination of the issue, right now. He may well get it. In the process, he may ruin all hopes of advancing his cause for generations to come.

For the time being, at least, he is being treated as a brilliant, courageous "saint" by the homosexual crew. For the time being he can bask in the shower of adulation he is getting from his homeys. But I wonder how he will be viewed if, after winning a very minor battle, he loses their "war" for them, eh?

Who knows, maybe he doesn't care a whit about the long-term future. Maybe he just wanted to make this ruling, and let it stand, however temporarily, after lifting his stay, so that he can "marry" his partner in the interim and get some personal benefits, eh?