Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: The Supreme Court is not interpreting existing law [View all]LetMyPeopleVote
(146,639 posts)25. The SCOTUS ruling in the 14th Amendment disqualification issue was also largely dicta
A court can only rule on the issue that is before it and anything beyond what is necessary for the ruling is called "dicta" and has no real weight. The five male judges in the 14th Amendment disqualification case ruled that the only that a federal officer can be disqualified would be if Congress adopted a specific statute. That issue was not necessary for the opinion and was pure dicta as pointed out in the dissents.
The four male SCOTUS justices other than CJ Roberts were all interested in hypothetical issues and any ruling they make on these hypothetical concerns will also be dicta
I have come to the conclusion that we need to add 4 additional justices to this Court due to these idiots.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
45 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
The SCOTUS ruling in the 14th Amendment disqualification issue was also largely dicta
LetMyPeopleVote
May 1
#25
If TSF returns to the WH, expect to see "Brown v Board of Education" overturned.
no_hypocrisy
May 2
#45