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.
Every post you put up says the exact same thing using slightly different words. You don’t respect judges who disagree with you and you think that the American judiciary is corrupt. I get it. Saying it over and over again becomes tedious.
I find Jeff’s historical research to be informative. The ad hominems and flame wars, I skip over and ignore.
If eligibility challengers didn’t continue to file lawsuits and appeals, I wouldn’t be commenting on the opinions, holdings or the obiter dicta that comes from them.