“The same mistake is made by the Vattel proponents when they appeal to Minor v. Happersett. That case did not present the question of the birth status of a person born in the U.S. to an alien parent(s), so that opinion is irrelevant in any case where that question is actually presented.”
Judge Gordon is a 2009 appointee of Republican Governor Jan Brewer. Judge Gordon was retained in his judgeship in the Arizona election of 2012 AFTER the decision excerpted above, with 79% of the vote in the November, 2012 election.
Exactly.
And what did I say? Here comes Mr. Legal Suck @$$, to assert that exact point.
Again, this argument is based on the premise that Judges are completely ignorant of the law, EXCEPT when they are addressing a specific case. I perceive that this line of argument has nothing to do with reason, and everything to do with straw grasping from people who do not like what they say.
Beyond that, it misses a very obvious point. When Jackass Jeff is quoting the opinion of Rawle, or Bayard, or whoever the hell he is quoting lately, there is no outcry to make a distinction between a "holding" and "orbiter dicta." (because the writers and lawmakers are expressing an opinion, not holding a d@mn trial.) But when it comes to Judges expressing legal opinions DURING a trial, they are not extended the same courtesy of accepting what they say as their opinion; A courtesy which Jeff et al routinely extends to all the non-judges out there.
You intentionally invoke a different standard for Judges than for anyone else, then you have the gall to come here and attempt to convince us that this is a reasonable thing to do?
Your argument on this is much the same as your other arguments; Complete lawyer excrement which only "procedure worship" fools will swallow.