BackAgain
Neutronium Member & truth speaker #StopBrandon
Also, I’m wondering if you are actually citing a long held “opinion” of the courts in the terms of precedent? Or are you making reference to side thoughts expressed in some legal opinions that are not actually part of the legal opinion? There is a concept known as obiter dicta. Normally, it’s just called “dicta.” It essentially refers to the non-precedential portion of legal decisions and rulings and opinions that aren’t expressed as a basis for the rulings.LOL!!!! nice try grouchooooooooooooooo....
it's a standing opinion of the court. know what that means? that means it hasn't changed. so when the sausage casing accepted the pardon - he also admitted guilt.
learn to think critically.
Example: the court opinion says “the law requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt of A and B to support a finding of C. Here, the proof at trial properly and sufficiently supports A. The proof at trial properly and sufficiently supports B. Also, the defendant is ugly, smells bad, dresses like a clown and has terrible taste in music. The court finds, based on the trial evidence that the jury verdict of guilty was legally proper. Conviction affirmed.”
The A and B part and the C conclusion were all necessary to the ruling. The musings about the defendant being ugly, smelling bad, etc., are all orbiter dicta. They have no value as precedent.
Furthermore, precedent can always be questioned. Plessy v. Ferguson was absolutely precedent at one point. But, overtime, it got questioned. And it ain’t precedent no more.