Okay, imagine yourself an attorney for “Wade”, and detail your legal strategy.
I am not certain about that. I know that State Appeals Courts can refuse to hear a case, and if lower Fed Courts are obligated, they can still let the lower court rulings stand.
Gotta jump in here, all, I have to say that a woman IS forced to risk unwanted pregnancies, or stay celibate all her life. How do I know? Because I had tried since I was 21 to ahev a Tubal Ligation because I never wanted children, was not cut out to raise them; I love them but have little patience, and knew my limitations. Could not find a doctor in New Jersey, Virginia, Rhode Island, England, or Washington DC to do that surgery on me. Thier reason? I was “…still young enough to have children, obviously did not know my own mind, and would probably change my mind someday and want a child…” and they would not TAKE THAT RIGHT AWAY FROM ME. Oh boy.
So at 45 I have a 6 year old son that I am raising by myself, and who has a father who HAS been paying child support, because it cost approx $600/month to raise a child, and despite my 35,000/yr job, I had to declare bankruptcy. I lost my car, almost lost the house and my job. He only started paying when DFCS tracked him down and after he got his paternity test.
Now I agree there are a lot of women out there who take advantage of the system, but there are as many men who would willingly and irresponsibly ‘spread their seed’ heedless of the lives they ruin. Because I am pro abortion, but could not do that myself, I did choose to keep my child, but that does not mean I created him myself. And, it I were able to have done it financially myself, trust me I would never have involved that other, But I could’t and so I did.
I ask that no one decide that women have all the breaks in this issue, until they see that we have been lacking one big one— we are only autonomous AFTER we are in a condition to propulgate the human race, not before when we can make decisions that would truly not hold us to the tryranny of our biology and allow us to be independent and creative and individuals, as opposed to barefoot and pregnant.
Trust me I too would trade off willingly the monthly stuff that I put up with and be childless, and without that responsibility, but doctors (men and women) were too ingrained with the sociological expectations of the female, that I was not allowed that choice and yet still be able to identify myself as an actively sexual being. And that is only part of it all, but I will stop here. It’s enough for now :
Maximum C, that doesn’t change the scenario.
If Gomez and Roe conflicted, the conflict would be litigated, and litigated extensively.
Period. It is that simple. Lawyers make their living litigating conflicts between precedent, and this one, if it existed, would be a whopper of a conflict.
So it is still a conspiracy theory. For Razor’s belief that there was a conflict in how gender equality is handled judicially to be true, either every litigator since 1973 has been too stupid to notice the conflict, or has conspired not to raise the conflict in trial court across the country.
That is not a rational assumption. If nothing else, lawyers opposed to Roe would have started litigation. Even if the Supreme Court never heard it again, they might be able to get Roe overturned in large portions of the country - and they’d be dying to do that.
Sua
But a trial court must address the conflict. If a father no longer wishing to pay child support for an illegitimate child files a lawsuit seeking to overturn his support order on grounds that Roe makes the order unconstitutional, the trial court must either overturn the order or let it stand - that is, they must rule on whether Roe is controlling or Gomez is controlling.
And when courts issue a ruling, it is a public document, available for anyone to look up.
Sua
What privacy?
Sua-
It’s hardly a conspiracy theory for someone to have a problem with a past supreme court case. Cases get overturned or defined into obscelence all the friggin’ time. (fuck you, Scalia. You know those takings cases didnt mean what you said they did!) Cases get decided for political reasons, so when the politics of the court changes, so do the cases. It’s silly to claim that just because it hasn’t yet been overturned, there are no possible objections to the court’s reasoning.
A court can address a conflict in a way that creates no precedent. The vast majority of cases you look up have NO LEGAL WEIGHT because they arn’t “published opinions”. So what a trial court has to say on Roe is meaningless unless it was controversial enough for a higher court to take up on appeal.
-C
Correct, a “trial court” must first address the “conflict”, but there is a third option. The court can simply dismiss the case.
True, lawyers make their living litigating, but they need plaintiffs. Trouble is, litigation costs money, much money. And when it gets up in the appeal process and the plaintiff comes up on the losing end, he or she will not only be burdened with thier costs, they will be assigned the costs of the defendant as well.
So, basically, the man “involved” was obligated simply because of your personal beliefs.
Dismissing the case is not a third option - it is one of the two options. A dismissal is a determination that the argument - that Roe makes child support orders for illegitimate children unconstitutional - has no merit and there is no conflict between Roe and Gomez. A dismissal is how a court would let the support order stand.
That is not what I said. What I said is that the fact that the alleged conflict has not been challenged demonstrates that there are no possible objections to the court’s reasoning.
::sigh:: You think a decision concerning Roe is not controversial enough?
The point, Maximum C, is that the issue would be litigated, if it were a real issue. Even an unpublished decision on this issue would be reported and discussed. Are you aware that the infamous McDonald’s coffee case was an unreported decision? It got a bit of press even though it had no legal precedent.
Your argument is that a decision, even an unpublished one, that addressed and possibly determined that the most controversial Supreme Court decision of the past generation was bad law would not be reported. That’s ludicrous.
Huh? The American legal system operates under the “American Rule,” that each party pays their own legal fees.
In any event, money would not be an issue here. Given the possibility of overruling Roe conservative legal foundations would take the case on for free.
In any event, even if there were never any litigation over the conflict, there would be law review articles and op-ed pieces in the New York Times and Wall Street Journal about the purported discrepancy between gender equality enshrined in Gomez and Roe. Men’s rights and anti-mandatory child support groups would be protesting outside the Supreme Court. Books would be written. Crossfire would have debates.
Razorsharp, as a preliminary matter, you demonstrate a gross ignorance of the judicial system - your belief that a dismissal does not address the issues is demonstrative of that, as is your belief that the timing of the issuance of Roe and Gomez has legal import.
But more to the point, you ignore a key element of a plausible conspiracy theory - a group of “them” who have conspired to keep the information from the public.
All the information here is public. Both Roe and Gomez are published decisions available for all to read and analyze. The timing of the issuance of Roe and Gomez is public record. The legal theories underlying both cases are spelled out in the cases themselves.
But in all this time only you, whose lack of knowledge of the legal system demonstrates that you have no legal education, have uncovered this glaring conflict concerning the most reported legal decision of our times.
The narcissism is astonishing.
Sua
P.S. Of course, we can add to that the fact that, in this thread alone, numerous attorneys have demonstrated that there is no conflict between the decisions, and indeed, they don’t even address the same legal theories or issues. But you know better than us, as well.
Okay, (for the 2nd time) now that you have exposed my ignorance of the judicial system, imagine yourself an attorney for “Wade” and detail your legal stategy with regards to the above statement.
Enlighten us lay-persons.
The Wade attorneys would have filed a motion for supplemental briefing on the effect of Gomez on the issues to be determined in Roe. They would have pointed out in that motion that a decision against Wade in Roe would conflict with Gomez.
Which is precisely what, under your theory, the attorneys in Gomez would have done had Roe come out first - exactly what you theorize the Supreme Court conspired to avoid. The Gomez attorneys would have filed a motion for supplemental briefing on the effect of Roe on the issues to be determined in Gomez. They would have pointed out in that motion that a decision against Gomez in Gomez would conflict with Roe.
Even if, as I’m sure you will say, the Supreme Court would deny the motion, the motion would exist in the record in the Roe case. It would have been filed.
It wasn’t filed, because there is no conflict between Roe and Gomez.
Sua
“Congress was concerned about taxpayers misusing the courts and obstructing the appeal rights of others when it enacted tougher sanctions in the 1980s,” said IRS Commissioner Charles O. Rossotti. “The courts are for resolving unclear issues of law, not a forum for repeating arguments that the courts have already rejected. Taxpayers intending to use the court as a soapbox should consider the potential cost.” The law allows the courts to impose a penalty of up to $25,000 when they come to any of three conclusions:
a taxpayer instituted a proceeding primarily for delay,
a position is frivolous or groundless, or
a taxpayer unreasonably failed to pursue administrative remedies.
The courts´ determination to use their sanctions authority to discourage the filing of frivolous tax suits is evident in the case discussions that follow, which are taken from the public court records from the court proceedings:
http://www.unclefed.com/Tax-News/2001/nr01-59.html
Jane Akre and Steve Wilson, the two former FOX Television (WTVT-13) journalists have filed appeals of a ruling that they must pay the legal costs and fees the broadcaster incurred defending itself in a landmark whistleblower case the reporters filed in 1998. The journalists estimate FOX spent than a million dollars on its defense.
http://www.mindfully.org/GE/2003/Akre-Wilson-Pay-Fox7mar03.htm
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by SuaSponte *
The Wade attorneys would have filed a motion for supplemental briefing on the effect of Gomez on the issues to be determined in Roe. They would have pointed out in that motion that a decision against Wade in Roe would conflict with Gomez.[/QUTOE]
And just what “conflict” or “effect” would a previous “Roe” decision have on a subsequent “Gomez” ruling?
[QUOTE]
Which is precisely what, under your theory, the attorneys in Gomez would have done had Roe come out first - exactly what you theorize the Supreme Court conspired to avoid. The Gomez attorneys would have filed a motion for supplemental briefing on the effect of Roe on the issues to be determined in Gomez. They would have pointed out in that motion that a decision against Gomez in Gomez would conflict with Roe.
[QUOTE]
Again, what “conflict” would that be? Come on, so far you have been dodging your own statement.
Congress or the appropriate state legislature may set aside the American Rule by specific provision in a statute in cases that are brought under that particular statute. Examples of instances where Congress has done so are tax suits, sexual and racial discrimination cases, and whistleblower statutes.
If there is no such specific provision, the American Rule applies. Here, there is no such specific provision.
The American Rule is also set aside where (in relevant part)
(1) a suit/motion is filed for an improper purpose, such as to harrass or cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the costs of litigation;
(2) the claims, defenses and other legal contentions therein are not warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law or the establishment of new law.
Source: Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 11(b).
The American Rule is also set aside where a party has, in bad faith engaged in “vexatious multiplication of litigation” (Source: 28 U.S.C. s. 1927) (which means that a party seeks to relitigate a matter already decided), or where a party has committed a fraud on the court (Source: Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 50 US 1132.*
A suit or motion pointing out a conflict between two Supreme Court decisions and seeking resolution of that conflict would not fall afoul either of Rule 11(b) or the other instances where the American Rule is set aside. Indeed, it is a highly meritorious litigation.
Sua
Let’s try this one…
And just what “conflict” or “effect” would a previous “Roe” decision have on a subsequent “Gomez” ruling?
Again, what “conflict” would that be? Come on, so far you have been dodging your own statement.
Razorsharp, it is your contention that Roe and Gomez conflict. I am not dodging anything - I have repeatedly stated that no such conflict exists.
If a conflict between the decisions had existed, the attorneys for Wade would have taken the steps I stated.
Sua
And that backs up my contention that, in the Appellate Courts, the plaintiff can be assessed the costs of the Defendant.
You have a lot of nerve to call me ignorant on issues of the judiciary.
Holding of Roe: A woman’s right to an abortion is a protected by the fundamental right of privacy; therefore, a governmental regulation of abortion practices will be upheld only if it is narrowly tailored to promote a compelling interest.
Holding of Gomez: To satisfy the Equal Protection clause, a state governmental classification that is based on the status of a person having been “legitimate” or “illegitimate” at birth must be substantially related to an important governmental interest.
How are these holdings in conflict?
Guess you missed the last sentence of my post.
I do have a lot of nerve calling you ignorant on issues of the judiciary. It is usually not considered polite pointing out someone else’s failings.
But I’m not here to be polite. The fact is, you are ignorant on issues of the judiciary.
Sua