Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Devery]

ooooh the other day i saw malabimba the malicious whore! (i think you had shown me the poster, right?)
it was a bit trashy, a porno horror that wasn't scary at all, but that dealt somehow indirectly with serious themes such as ecclesiastic celibacy being against nature and so on.
some parts were just hilarious, not too bad afterall.

Cool bunnies!


And in the "no big surprise" department,  the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued of stay of Judge Walker's decision to allow same-sex marriages to have begun Wednesday while it considers the constitutionality of the state's gay marriage ban.

[Devery]

I'm liking the Court of Appeals.  By granting the stay, it keeps the case away from the Supreme Court, and it can therefore control the case completely during this stage.  (For this reason, it would be foolish for plaintiffs to appeal the stay).  The court has ordered that the case be expedited, culminating in oral arguments scheduled for December 6.  It also directed appellants to include in their opening brief a discussion of why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of Article III standing.  This issue has arisen because neither the Governator nor Attorney General Jerry Brown appealed the decision.  It shows that the court has serious doubts about whether the appellants can even appeal the decision.  In order to have standing (the right to even be in court) the Prop 8 proponents will have to satisfy the three requirements for Article III standing: (1) injury in fact, which means an invasion of a legally protected interest that is (a) concrete and particularized, and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical; (2) a causal relationship between the injury and the challenged conduct, which means that the injury fairly can be traced to the challenged action of the defendant, and has not resulted from the independent action of some third party not before the court; and (3) a likelihood that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision, which means that the prospect of obtaining relief from the injury as a result of a favorable ruling is not too speculative.

Even if the Ninth decides they do have a right to appeal, the proponents will still have to prove that marriage equality causes harm using the “evidence” they presented in the District Court.  Good luck with that!

But - - the panel that hears the case will not be the same panel that granted the stay and issued the above orders; it will be chosen shortly before the hearing.

[CeeGBee]

Interesting test of "HOW ideological is the current Supreme Court"....

The current Conservative/Republican majority on the SCOTUS has been among the narrowest,
if not the narrowest ever in their decisions regarding who has standing to bring an action...

With the Governor and A.G. of California uninterested in appealing, there really isn't a pro-Prop8
entity with both the will and standing to appeal....  unless those Right-leaning judges decide,
just this once, to bend the rules, presumably because the underlying issue of restricting gay
rights is more important to their ideological base than any pesky ol' Constitutional questions....

[lentower]

But - - the panel that hears the case will not be the same panel that granted the stay and issued the above orders; it will be chosen shortly before the hearing.

the whole ninth circuit is likely to sit 'en banc' to hear the initial appeal, or to either review the three judge's decision, or to rehear the appeal.
i expect that will be expediated as well.

we'll see how long the supreme court takes ...

[N.U.]

One reason why Prop 8 mustn't be reinstated:

[Tiervexx]

Call me over-idealistic, but I'd prefer a Supreme Court free of ideologues,
no matter what 'side'.

BWHAHAHAHAHA!

It's not just that politics will not stop being political it is that there is no such thing as an objective way to judge.  ANY view of politics is going to be ideological.

Something is objective if and only if it is falsifiable. Meaning there must be a theoretical demonstration that would refute it. For example, an unsolved mathematical problem called the Goldbach conjecture states that every even integer greater than 2 is the sum of two primes. This is falsifiable because all you have to do is find an even integer greater than two that can not be described as the sum of two primes (computer software has been used to confirm that it works up to absurdly large numbers).

So many ethical philosophers and legal scholars fool themselves into thinking that there can be some sort of scientific approach to what really is no more objective than fashion design.

For example, I will now state that the commerce clause of the Constitution gives police the right to punch babies because they represent a lot of commerce. I challenge anyone to come up with a fully consistent and complete argument that this is not the case. Such an argument must not reference concepts simply because they are widely accepted...

Ideologue (n) - An advocate of a particular ideology, especially an official exponent of that ideology.


The advocates should be the lawyers arguing the case.  If the Justices have already taken
a side before the case is heard, it rather defeats the purpose of the court, doesn't it?

It's inevitable that someone politically-conected to the degree necessary to be appointed
to the Supreme Court will have "leanings", but it's gotten so the Justices appointed by one
side or the other will rule based not on the facts of the case before them, but rather on a
strict basis of the platform of their party.

Pick a "hot-topic", and you can pretty much always predict which side each justice will
side with, regardless of the actual facts of the case.   Some bias is inevitable, but when
the case is decided (almost always 5-4) before it's filed, the system is broken.

You're not actually addressing what I said at all.  There are objective facts in something like a murder trial where there might be the victim's blood in the killer's car etc. but in a case like this where they are interpreting a law there really are no "facts."

When a political case does not have a falsifiable answer you simply can't answer it without ideology.  The only true non ideological position is to be neutral (though ideology might also push someone to be neutral).

[CeeGBee]

Call me over-idealistic, but I'd prefer a Supreme Court free of ideologues,
no matter what 'side'.

BWHAHAHAHAHA!

It's not just that politics will not stop being political it is that there is no such thing as an objective way to judge.  ANY view of politics is going to be ideological.

Something is objective if and only if it is falsifiable. Meaning there must be a theoretical demonstration that would refute it. For example, an unsolved mathematical problem called the Goldbach conjecture states that every even integer greater than 2 is the sum of two primes. This is falsifiable because all you have to do is find an even integer greater than two that can not be described as the sum of two primes (computer software has been used to confirm that it works up to absurdly large numbers).

So many ethical philosophers and legal scholars fool themselves into thinking that there can be some sort of scientific approach to what really is no more objective than fashion design.

For example, I will now state that the commerce clause of the Constitution gives police the right to punch babies because they represent a lot of commerce. I challenge anyone to come up with a fully consistent and complete argument that this is not the case. Such an argument must not reference concepts simply because they are widely accepted...

Ideologue (n) - An advocate of a particular ideology, especially an official exponent of that ideology.


The advocates should be the lawyers arguing the case.  If the Justices have already taken
a side before the case is heard, it rather defeats the purpose of the court, doesn't it?

It's inevitable that someone politically-conected to the degree necessary to be appointed
to the Supreme Court will have "leanings", but it's gotten so the Justices appointed by one
side or the other will rule based not on the facts of the case before them, but rather on a
strict basis of the platform of their party.

Pick a "hot-topic", and you can pretty much always predict which side each justice will
side with, regardless of the actual facts of the case.   Some bias is inevitable, but when
the case is decided (almost always 5-4) before it's filed, the system is broken.

You're not actually addressing what I said at all.  There are objective facts in something like a murder trial where there might be the victim's blood in the killer's car etc. but in a case like this where they are interpreting a law there really are no "facts."

When a political case does not have a falsifiable answer you simply can't answer it without ideology.  The only true non ideological position is to be neutral (though ideology might also push someone to be neutral).

Such decisions are the role of lower courts.  The appellate courts decide questions about how the law or laws
apply to a case, generally when two or more legal principles conflict, or at least seem to conflict.  Bob's a murderer,
without a doubt, but the damning evidence was found using an improperly-filed search-warrant...  Suzie didn't get
into the college she wanted, because (the college claims) The Law requires them to admit a less-qualified minority
student...  Black-and-white questions can be entrusted to twelve everyday people too dumb to get out of jury duty,
but anything more subtle than that...

My problem is the difference between a bias and a prejudice.

[Tiervexx]

Call me over-idealistic, but I'd prefer a Supreme Court free of ideologues,
no matter what 'side'.

BWHAHAHAHAHA!

It's not just that politics will not stop being political it is that there is no such thing as an objective way to judge.  ANY view of politics is going to be ideological.

Something is objective if and only if it is falsifiable. Meaning there must be a theoretical demonstration that would refute it. For example, an unsolved mathematical problem called the Goldbach conjecture states that every even integer greater than 2 is the sum of two primes. This is falsifiable because all you have to do is find an even integer greater than two that can not be described as the sum of two primes (computer software has been used to confirm that it works up to absurdly large numbers).

So many ethical philosophers and legal scholars fool themselves into thinking that there can be some sort of scientific approach to what really is no more objective than fashion design.

For example, I will now state that the commerce clause of the Constitution gives police the right to punch babies because they represent a lot of commerce. I challenge anyone to come up with a fully consistent and complete argument that this is not the case. Such an argument must not reference concepts simply because they are widely accepted...

Ideologue (n) - An advocate of a particular ideology, especially an official exponent of that ideology.


The advocates should be the lawyers arguing the case.  If the Justices have already taken
a side before the case is heard, it rather defeats the purpose of the court, doesn't it?

It's inevitable that someone politically-conected to the degree necessary to be appointed
to the Supreme Court will have "leanings", but it's gotten so the Justices appointed by one
side or the other will rule based not on the facts of the case before them, but rather on a
strict basis of the platform of their party.

Pick a "hot-topic", and you can pretty much always predict which side each justice will
side with, regardless of the actual facts of the case.   Some bias is inevitable, but when
the case is decided (almost always 5-4) before it's filed, the system is broken.

You're not actually addressing what I said at all.  There are objective facts in something like a murder trial where there might be the victim's blood in the killer's car etc. but in a case like this where they are interpreting a law there really are no "facts."

When a political case does not have a falsifiable answer you simply can't answer it without ideology.  The only true non ideological position is to be neutral (though ideology might also push someone to be neutral).

Such decisions are the role of lower courts.  The appellate courts decide questions about how the law or laws
apply to a case, generally when two or more legal principles conflict, or at least seem to conflict.  Bob's a murderer,
without a doubt, but the damning evidence was found using an improperly-filed search-warrant...  Suzie didn't get
into the college she wanted, because (the college claims) The Law requires them to admit a less-qualified minority
student...  Black-and-white questions can be entrusted to twelve everyday people too dumb to get out of jury duty,
but anything more subtle than that...

My problem is the difference between a bias and a prejudice.

You are still not addressing my point.

The point I was making is that the more subtle questions addressed by higher courts don't have objective answers and therefore fall onto ideology.

Higher court judges are essentially appointed politicians.  There is no way around that.

And I just want to say that there are plenty of cases where the 12 who were too dumb to get out of jury duty could not interpret the evidence in a black and white criminal case either 

[CeeGBee]

Stuff

Stuff

Stuff
[/size]Other stuff

More stuff

My problem is the difference between a bias and a prejudice.

You are still not addressing my point.

[Tiervexx]

Stuff

Stuff

Stuff
[/size]Other stuff

More stuff

My problem is the difference between a bias and a prejudice.

You are still not addressing my point.

That line is not even coming close to addressing what I said about how a non ideological supreme court is a nonsensical idea.

[CeeGBee]

Stuff

Stuff

Stuff
[/size]Other stuff

More stuff

My problem is the difference between a bias and a prejudice.

You are still not addressing my point.

That line is not even coming close to addressing what I said about how a non ideological supreme court is a nonsensical idea.

I'll type slowly....
A bias is a pre-existing favor for one side of an argument over the other.  It is, as you
suggest, pretty much inevitable for a politically-appointed jurist, but it is still subject
to reasoned counter-argument.  While the judge in question might lean particularly to
(for example) the political Right, he (or she) might be persuaded that a particular gun
control law does not unacceptably impede a citizen's 2nd Amendment rights, or that
this bit of anti-abortion law is an unconstitutional intrusion on a woman's privacy...

A PREJUDICE...  well, even if you've never taken Latin:  pre + judice : prejudge....
Before the first brief has been filed, before any arguments have been presented, a majority
of the current court will have made up its mind, without any hope of its being changed, based
purely on the ideological slant of their 'patron' political party.

______________________________________________________ _________________________

This just in, possibly relevant to the above topic, if not this particular branch of it:
Remember the 60s, when "the black vote" went from the Republicans (Abe Lincoln's party)
to the Democrats (JFK) ?  ---  NO?  Well, it happened....

It's starting to look like the Dems are going to hand "the gay vote" back to the GOP.
Note:
- homophobe Dem President- pushing for gay rights, but only using one hand 'cuz
  he's holding his nose with the other.

-Republicans embracing a very fiscal-minded, small-government sort of rehtoric,
 while moving social issues to the back burner...

-Powerful figures in the GOP either coming out or simply taking the stance that
 a person's sexuality is nobody's business but their own....  and nobody says a
 word about it (not like ten or fifteen years ago...)

[Tiervexx]

Stuff

Stuff

Stuff
[/size]Other stuff

More stuff

My problem is the difference between a bias and a prejudice.

You are still not addressing my point.

That line is not even coming close to addressing what I said about how a non ideological supreme court is a nonsensical idea.

I'll type slowly....
A bias is a pre-existing favor for one side of an argument over the other.  It is, as you
suggest, pretty much inevitable for a politically-appointed jurist, but it is still subject
to reasoned counter-argument.  While the judge in question might lean particularly to
(for example) the political Right, he (or she) might be persuaded that a particular gun
control law does not unacceptably impede a citizen's 2nd Amendment rights, or that
this bit of anti-abortion law is an unconstitutional intrusion on a woman's privacy...

A PREJUDICE...  well, even if you've never taken Latin:  pre + judice : prejudge....
Before the first brief has been filed, before any arguments have been presented, a majority
of the current court will have made up its mind, without any hope of its being changed, based
purely on the ideological slant of their 'patron' political party.

You don't have to type slowly, you just have to say what you meant in the first place...

I see what you meant now.  I agree that the Supreme Court Justices probably already think they know everything and won't listen to any legal argument.  So I don't disagree with you but I think the reason I was having trouble understanding you before is because I had assumed you were trying to argue with me which does not seem to be the case.

Your point is largely separate from mine.  I think you might even agree that there is no objective way to interpret the law?

[CeeGBee]

I think you might even agree that there is no objective way to interpret the law?

Depends on the law.

How fast were you going?

Did you blow up the Mini-Mart?

How many wives do you have?

So, 80 pounds of prescription meds in your carry-on bag.....

[Tiervexx]

I think you might even agree that there is no objective way to interpret the law?

Depends on the law.

How fast were you going?

Did you blow up the Mini-Mart?

How many wives do you have?

So, 80 pounds of prescription meds in your carry-on bag.....

those are indeed objective questions but the laws behind them can still have ambiguous wording and the constitutions (state and federal) behind those are ALWAYS subjectively interpreted.

[Devery]

For your next assignment.......

http://www.law.yale.edu/documents/pdf/objectivity_and_interpretation.pdf