So gay!!!

[Hopper]

Anyone else bein bombarded with "ads" like this, here at Jazzfanz?:

Meet Gay Singles Find Lasting Love with Local Gay Singles Based on Chemistry. Chemistry.com/Gay-Lesbian-Dating

Custom Restroom Signs
www.NaagTag.c

Gay/Lesbian 5 Star Hotels Book Luxury Hotels in San Francisco Huge Discounts If You Book Now!


Heh, ya can't even discuss gay marriage without be urged by "chemistry.com" to "find lasting (gay) love," ya see? I hope that aint no outfit you work for, eh, Chem?

 

[G-O-A-T]

I don't follow your reasoning here at all, Goat. You may or may not remember all the cases I cited and quoted, but the import was clearly that, in order for a court to even be willing to adjudicate a matter, BOTH sides must have a valid stake so that an "actual controversy" can arise under Article III.

Think about it, if you applied the case or controversy analysis to both parties, don't you think that about 90% of cases would be dismissed? Standing requires an injury... and in most cases, only one party is injured... the plaintiff. So, if we applied your analysis, all cases in which just one party was injured would be dismissed.

Under your reasoning, any ruling entered against a defaulting, "friendly" defendant would be absolutely unassailable rather than dismissable, i.e. voidable on grounds of collusion.

Not sure what this even means. Friendly suits and fraudulent decisions should always be dismissed. FYI, prop 8 wasn't friendly.

What is especially egregious here is that the Govenor has a solemn duty to "uphold and defend" the state constitution. In collusion with a gay judge, he seems to have clearly ignored and violated that duty, seeking to uphold and defend ONLY the portions of the constitution which he personally agrees with. If allowed, this would, in effect, make HIM a supreme court, with only one "Justice."

So, your saying that if the governator would have defended the case with a response of "Yes your honor, I do think this is unconstitutional", this would have been a proper defense? Or are you saying that the governator should have used any means possible to win this case... including lying to the court about his own opinions? Instead, what actually happened, is that prop 8 proponents intervened to save the day... but failed.

Just because you don't like the decision it doesn't mean there were shortcomings in the legal procedure applied. You should just be happy that an appeals court might not hear the case... now the Supreme Court will have to wait a little longer before they have an opportunity to strike down all gay marriage bans.

 

[Hopper]

Think about it, if you applied the case or controversy analysis to both parties, don't you think that about 90% of cases would be dismissed?

I looked at U.S. Supreme Court cases on the topic, quoted portions for you to read without effort, and gave you citations so you could read every word of the cases for yourself, eh, Goat? I think the cases meant what they said, not, as you are suggesting, that they require 90% of cases to be dismissed.

 

[Hopper]

. So, your saying that if the governator would have defended the case with a response of "Yes your honor, I do think this is unconstitutional", this would have been a proper defense? Or are you saying that the governator should have used any means possible to win this case... including lying to the court about his own opinions? .

Goat, do you pose these to me as serious questions? If so, you may be very lucky to pass the bar exam, I figure.

If you, as a bottom-feeder, undertake the duty to present a legal defense for an alleged criminal, would your only "defense" be to either:

1. Tell the court there is no need for a trial and that, since it is your personal belief that your client is guilty, he should be summarily convicted and sentenced, or else,

2. Lie to the court?

 

[C l u t c H 385]

Think about it, if you applied the case or controversy analysis to both parties, don't you think that about 90% of cases would be dismissed? Standing requires an injury... and in most cases, only one party is injured... the plaintiff. So, if we applied your analysis, all cases in which just one party was injured would be dismissed.

Dubya. Tee. Eff.

 

[Hopper]

Dubya. Tee. Eff.

Heh, I guess some of these bottom-feeder wannabes figure people are stupid enough to be confused and discouraged, if not 100% convinced, by any kinda "logic" they act like they're usin, eh, Clutch?

That's exactly what makes them bottom-feeder wannabes, I figure.

 

[G-O-A-T]

I looked at U.S. Supreme Court cases on the topic, quoted portions for you to read without effort, and gave you citations so you could read every word of the cases for yourself, eh, Goat? I think the cases meant what they said, not, as you are suggesting, that they require 90% of cases to be dismissed.

Only one party needs to fulfill the standing requirements to have a case or controversy. I'm done explaining this any further. If you don't get it then read a book or pay someone to explain it further.

If you, as a bottom-feeder, undertake the duty to present a legal defense for a criminal, would your only "defense" be to either:

1. Tell the court there is no need for a trial and that, since it is your personal belief that your client is guilty, he should be summarily convicted and sentenced, or else,

2. Lie to the court?

If I thought my client was innocent I would do everything within the rules to win.

If I KNEW that my client was guilty I would try to plea bargain. If I had to go to court I would make the prosecution prove its case... but I would not make an affirmative defense.

Now, if you were the criminal on trial in the latter case, who would you want defending you? Me or the guy who believed in your innocence (or was willing to lie)? The state representatives believed that prop 8 was wrong and allowed some other fools (who believed in prop 8) to defend the case. I truly don't understand what your beef is. They lost? sorry, not good enough.

 

[Hopper]

Only one party needs to fulfill the standing requirements to have a case or controversy. I'm done explaining this any further. If you don't get it then read a book or pay someone to explain it further.

Heh, "explain FURTHER?" You have "explained" nothing.

If I KNEW that my client was guilty I would try to plea bargain. If I had to go to court I would make the prosecution prove its case... but I would not make an affirmative defense.

An "affirmative defense," like, for example, the fact that the statute of limitations had run, ya mean? Like I done said, good luck passing the bar and/or or keeping your bar license from being yanked for ethical violations if that's the way you intend to do bidnizz, eh, Goat?

You don't have to take any case. Likewise, Swarzchenegger can resign if he doesn't want to attempt to uphold the constitution. Just don't try to have it both ways....take the case, pocket money for it, and refuse to to your duty.

Ever see the movie "Cape Fear," with Bobbie De Niro in it, eh, Goat? That kinda breach of duty can come back to haunt a guy, ya know?

 

[G-O-A-T]

Dubya. Tee. Eff.

I made a mistake in my terminology in response to Hopper implying that standing was required for both parties to find a controversy.

An "affirmative defense," like, for example, the fact that the statute of limitations had run, ya mean? Like I done said, good luck passing the bar and/or or keeping your bar license from being yanked for ethical violations if that's the way you intend to do bidnizz, eh, Goat?

More like "My client didn't commit the crime cause he was in France"... but I'm sure you will find something to nit pick with that quote too.

As far as this whole prop 8 standing thing goes, you called me out and I tried to explain it. I did so and don't feel like going any further considering the past discussion within this thread. How about this... if anything you say is correct (judgment gets dismissed), why don't you call me on it when it happens and I'll admit that you were right. Sound fair?

 

[moevillini]

here's what I've got at the top of my page:

maybe google adsense is smarter than I give it credit for - - seems it's sensing a great need for Special Ed teachers for some reason

:dunno:

 

[Hopper]

As far as this whole prop 8 standing thing goes, you called me out and I tried to explain it. I did so and don't feel like going any further considering the past discussion within this thread. How about this... if anything you say is correct (judgment gets dismissed), why don't you call me on it when it happens and I'll admit that you were right. Sound fair?

Well, Goat, certainly you don't have to discuss it if you don't want to, so that's certainly fair enough if that's what you choose to do. You had been pretty heavily involved in the "standing" question before in this thread, I and just figured you might have some continuting interest. I wasn't "calling you out." I haven't "said" anything to suggest that the case will get dismissed (the gay judge has, though). I just question the consistency. If the State MUST participate to overturn his ruling, as he suggests, and, given their prior refusal to defend a prior approval of a ruling against them, then the existence of a lack of actual controversy appears to re-emerge.

I don't think the appellate court will dismiss the appeal on lack of standing grounds. If they do, the I think they would almost have to void the entire ruling on Article III grounds, given the known facts about the collusion and lack of true controversy between the nominal plaintiffs and defendants. That much appears in the record, best I can tell.

 

[G-O-A-T]

I wasn't "calling you out." I haven't "said" anything to suggest that the case will get dismissed (the gay judge has, though).

Earlier you said

Seems like the judge himself sees a "cases and controversies" standing issue here, eh, Goat (you still around?)? If they don't have standing to appeal the case, how could they have had standing to "defend," it, I wonder?

It's not that I don't want to have any discussion, it's stuff like seeing you introduce legal reasons why you are correct, then argue about why your legal theories will not work and then watching you turn around and say you didn't think they would in the first place... it gets old.