Re: Dicta = Privacy?

" krp" <krp2457k@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in Dlp8k.108$Eg.54@trnddc01:">news:Dlp8k.108$Eg.54@trnddc01:


"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.

Do I think that you are alone in your ignorance? Where do you get that?
Your name is legion.

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.

Thanks for sharing. (That last would be equivalent to dicta as it's not
actually germane to the line of argument, right?)
.