-Submitted by David Drumm (Nal), Guest Blogger
Holdings, or ratio decidendi (Latin for “the rationale for the decision), are those parts of a court’s opinion that are binding on lower courts and later courts. This binding is referred to as the doctrine of stare decisis which provides hierarchical (vertical) and temporal (horizontal) continuity throughout the judicial system. Obiter Dicta (Latin for a statement “said in passing”), or dicta, are those parts of a court’s opinion that are not binding on lower courts and later courts. Dicta may suggest an interpretation of the law that may prove useful in future cases.
Distinguishing holdings and dicta is sometimes difficult and in some court opinions, intentionally so. Sub-categories of dicta, such as judicial dicta, and their different levels of authority, make the determination even more perilous. Dissenting opinions are always considered dicta.
Vertical stare decisis refers to the power of higher courts to bind the decisions of lower courts. All courts are bound by vertical precedent to follow the holdings in the decisions of the Supreme Court. Vertical stare decisis is generally considered absolute.
Horizontal stare decisis refers to the power of a court to bind itself. The Supreme Court while not bound by its prior decisions, does give them “substantial weight” in deliberations. There is a strong presumption that prior judicial articulations of the law are correct and generally should be followed. Horizontal stare decisis preserves a stable doctrine and prevents cycling.
While “we hold that …” or “the rule is …” are frequently giveaways to holdings, it is no guarantee in the holdings/dictum debate. In United States v. Rubin (1979), J. Friendly, in a concurring opinion, wrote:
A judge’s power to bind is limited to the issue that is before him; he cannot transmute dictum into decision by waving a wand and uttering the word “hold”.
Consider the example found in Minor v. Happersett (1875), a Supreme Court case dealing with the constitution of the State of Missouri that ordains: “Every male citizen of the United States shall be entitled to vote.” The following passage is from J. Waite’s opinion:
The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.
Portland Examiner contributor Dianna Cotter claims the reference to the natural-born citizen clause in this passage is part of the holding. The Wikipedia entry correctly identifies this reference as obiter dictum.
H/T: Legal Theory Lexicon, Judith M. Stinson, Michael Abramowicz and Maxwell Stearns, Robert G. Scofield.
Kontort:
Uh, what do you mean??? In my example there is a class (mammals) to which some critters obviously belong. (the Rabbits). There are doubts about other critters who lay eggs and have bills – the platypuses.
By stating the obvious, that rabbits are mammals — and with-holding judgment on the weird ones, the platypuses—all that is being done is stating the obvious while avoiding the questionable ones. At that point, platypuses can not be said to NOT be mammals, only that their status is debatable.
23 years later, in the case of Wong Kim Platypus, any doubts are laid to rest.
Said obviousness leads one to ask, have you said “Shibboleth” yet??? Or are you just trying to maintain an aura of neutrality while tooting the Vattle Birther tin whistle???
(No wonder you don’t like me. Incisive analysis like I provide is devastating isn’t it???)
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
23 years later
@ Cynkading
There is no such thing as a “Connecticutt social security number”. The Social Security Administration has a warning on their site that you should not make much of the geographic correlation of SS#’s. Something as simple as a mistakenly keypunched zip code would account for assigning a number other than what would be normally associated with an area. Dwight Eisenhower received a “California” number even though he was residing in Pennsylvania at the time it was assigned.
Slarti’s question is designed to switch the subject. The same question has littered the internet for some time.
Queefy has just proved she has not read Minor. FWI, girlfriend, there are non “Vattle birthers” that don’t like you either.
To answer Slarti’s question: the answer is 33% since the odds are 1 in 3 of guessing correctly.
kdsb:
The Case of Virginia Rabbit Versus Happersett (1875)
The Court: At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all rabbits were mammals, and their children were mammals, too. These were mammals, or common sense mammals, as distinguished from critters like platypuses or weird animals. Some authorities go further and include as mammals, platypuses. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.
Vattle Birthers: See!!! This PROVES platypuses are NOT mammals!!!
Rational People: Uh. . .No. Because the case was about a rabbit, they didn’t have to deal with platypuses at all.
Really now, how hard is this to understand???
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
One question. Why is Obama using a Connecticut social security number out of a state that he never lived in that belonged to someone else??
I would love to see more mathematical equation in quotes actually, they are fun. Not that it matters but at the very least, it exposes consistency, right?
@Slartibartfast, expect better of yourself instead of resorting to lazy name-calling. I gave you very specific citations of law that showed Dr. Chiyome Fukino was not being completely truthful to the HI legislature. Namecalling doesn’t explain away her lack of candor.
@ellen, you’ve ignored now for the THIRD time, that the state department has claimed that records prior to 1965 were destroyed. Obama’s absence of records does not disprove that he could have traveled from Kenya to Washington state after his birth. These records were destroyed. You should be concerned because the state deparment may be trying to hid the truth about Obama. The bottom line remains: There’s no legal nor physical evidence placing Obama in Hawaii until he was a toddler.
@squeegy: You’re still confused about what doubts the Minor court was discussing. The only doubt they raised was over the citizenship of persons born in the country without reference to the citizenship of the parents. There were NO DOUBTS about the children born of citizen parents. This group of persons was exclusively characterized as natural-born citizens. You’re not showing any good faith until you recognize this fact. It’s in the decision in black and white. Read it. Learn it. Understand it.
Slarts,
My head is already hurting!
Slarti:
I think the answer is 25% because there are 4 possible answers. But it could be 50% which isn’t on there or it could be 33% depending on the meaning of [“this” question].
The PJFoggy Obots like me??? I never would have dreamed that.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Slarti, you are avoiding making a mathematical equation for me, based off the Minor quote. Does it have you worried?
Squeeky,
Whenever I wrote tests, my students always felt that they were way too hard. I saw a question I liked recently–it was something like:
What are the odds that you will get this question correct by guessing?
A) 25%
B) 33%
C) 25%
D) 60%
Get it?
(Sorry, raff… :-()
Slarti:
That NOT showing good faith when arguing is what bothers me the most about the Vattle Birthers. I could be patient with people who were just un-informed. But it takes willful ignorance, at a minimum, to continue this two citizen parent foolishness. I mean, how hard is this:
Question 1: When a court says there are doubts about an issue, and says it does NOT (Hint!) need to address those doubts in THIS particular case, it means:
a) The court did NOT make a ruling on that issue.
b)Yippee We Win!!! The Court Decided That Issue In Our Favor!!!
c) It depends on the meaning of the word “NOT“
d) Is this a “Trick Question”???
This is from the test I give them.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
yesterday was a much more interesting day in this thread.
I hope Nal will soon have new insights to share with us after he is done with the research.
Anyway,
This is what he left us with…
“Some interesting quotes from the Ankeny decision:
Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, …
Key word: “guidance”
To the extent
that these authorities conflict with the United States Supreme Court‟s interpretation of what it means to be a natural born citizen, …
Key word: “interpretation”
Nowhere does the Court of Appeals for Indiana claim that they’re following a binding precedent. The court does not use the word “holding” to describe any of WKA’s citations.
Just saying.”
I must admit I have never heard this claim before…
Squeaky,
Huh? I think Flash Gordon is calling!
Squeeky,
The Vattelites may despise you, but they love you over at the Fogbow…
ksdb says (paraphrased): “It’s true, I found it on the inter-toobz!”
Sorry, but I’ve known how to debunk every argument you’ve made since shortly after each lie was first told by a birther. Don’t worry, ellen has been more than ably outing you for the pathetic, incompetent birther* that you are. Name-calling is all you deserve. Show good faith and it will be returned, show bad faith and I’ll call you out for your willful ignorance, stupidity, dishonesty, and bigotry. Your credibility is already zero right now–I don’t feel the need to do anything more than remind you of that fact.
*(non-birthers: sorry for the repetitive redundancy, but you need patience when trying to communicate with birthers…)
Re; “Obama would have traveled with his mother (since she took him off her passport in 1967 or 1968 — when he was listed as “Soebarkah.”). The lack of a record doesn’t prove he didn’t travel.”
Yes, he would have traveled with his mother, but he would have had to have been entered on her passport (unless issued one of his own, which is unlikely) or a US visa on a foreign passport. If this was done in Kenya, as claimed, the application for the passport, passport change or visa would have had to have taken place in Kenya (or if in Indonesia, then there, and the same for any other country).
Such a document or application has not been found. NOR HAS THERE BEEN A RECORD OF OBAMA’S BEING CHECKED INTO THE USA BY THE US IMMIGRATION SERVICE.
Thus there is the absence of either of these normal requirements for travelers, plus the Hawaii birth certificates, the confirmation by the officials, the statement by the teacher, the statement by the grandmother that the first that her family had heard of the birth was in a letter from Hawaii, etc.
raff,
I have yet to see the birther that feels shame–I think that feedback loop needs to be broken before you can become a birther…