Re: Dicta = Privacy?


"Deadrat" <a@xxxxx> wrote in message
news:dnk8k.6534$cW3.3744@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Idle law clerks put all kinds of useless dicta into opinions.

I've heard the right to privacy called many things
by various constitutional and legal scholars,
but "useless" is a new one.

You really think "dicta" means "privacy?"

The right to privacy is part of the substance of Griswold (and
other cases); it's not dicta.

Who said it was?

You did, legal eagle. It's in the first line of the post.

Actually he didn't. What he said was that law clerks put all sorts of
useless dicta into opinions. (Useless language.) In other words about
95% of the written court opinions are far too wordy.

Thanks for sharing. As sooon as you let them know your opinion, I'm sure
federal courts in all districts will want to cut down on the length of
their opinions.

Do you think I am the first person to ever express such an opinion? The
10th? Guess again.

Of course the legal eagle snipped the context. The discussion was about
the right to privacy.

But by all means, jump in on Bret's side. He's drowning in his
ignorance, and I'm sure he'll appreciate your throwing him the anchor of
your own expertise.

Sadly there is only a VERY selective right of privacy.



.