[Nero Germanicus]

“You know, like Nero Germanicus. For him, it is a real problem. But I have faith that he will be able to live with the cognitive dissonance such a conundrum presents. He’s always managed to do it before.”

---

I can live very easily with the distinction between what is “obiter dicta” (remarks of a judge which are not necessary to reaching a decision, but are made as comments, illustrations or thoughts) in a Supreme Court decision and what is the Court’s actual “holding” (ruling, opinion, decision).

There is no cognitive dissonance on my part concerning those two categories of writings in an opinion.

[DiogenesLamp]

I can live very easily with the distinction between what is “obiter dicta” (remarks of a judge which are not necessary to reaching a decision, but are made as comments, illustrations or thoughts) in a Supreme Court decision and what is the Court’s actual “holding” (ruling, opinion, decision).

Exactly what I meant. Lawyer types are perfectly capable of drawing artificial distinctions between one undeniable fact and another.

Believing that the Wong Kim Ark opinion is both wrong and right at the same time, is no great trick for people who are more grounded in procedure than they are in reality.

The legal system is just one big "Schrodinger's cat", and your "orbiter dicta" is the artificial boundary between your both dead and alive dissonance. It is like quantum superposition for you.

There is no cognitive dissonance on my part concerning those two categories of writings in an opinion.

That's the spirit! Don't ever let anyone shake your confidence in reality, or the lack thereof.