So gay!!!

[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

 

[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.