Article, then # 27 , # 35.
. . . . SP Alert.
Your link goes to the appellate review.
Not sure if you have been exposed to the term - dictum. It is background used by a judge to then form a ruling. The appellate judges ruling is 99% dictum to reach a simple decision:
“Steve Ankeny and Bill Kruse (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), pro se, appeal the trial courts grant of a motion to dismiss filed by Mitch Daniels, in his official capacity as the Governor of the State of Indiana (“Governor”). Plaintiffs raise nine issues, which we revise and restate as whether the trial court erred by granting the motion to dismiss under Ind. Trial Rule 12(B)(6).1 We affirm. 2”
That is the entire ‘ruling’. Everything else after that is dictum. Nauseating dictum at that. And unnecessary dictum since the ruling above did not rely on any of it. It was all show to provide fodder for those who want this to stop - basically an politician or government official.
The ruling above relied on this simple rule in Indiana trial law:
“(B) How presented. Every defense, in law or fact, to a claim for relief in any pleading, whether a claim, counterclaim, cross-claim, or third-party claim, shall be asserted in the responsive pleading thereto if one is required; except that at the option of the pleader, the following defenses may be made by motion:
...
(6) Failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, which shall include failure to name the real party in interest under Rule 17; “
See here for expanded specific to the Indian Trial Rules:
http://www.in.gov/judiciary/rules/trial_proc/#_Toc313019775
So it is odd that a judge who makes a ruling citing only state trial law rules would go out their way to write so much dictum that used SCOTUS rulings and other material.
....unless someone wrote it for him......
Article, then # 27 , # 35.
. . . . SP Alert.
Ankeny is all but worthless except for OBots to cite the case on the Internet. That sorrily written opinion concluded by citing the liberal, Carter appointed judge who wrote "nauseating dictum" from an illegal immigrant lawyer who said that the illegal immigrant's children were US natural born citizens (The deportation case made an unsupported statement).
....unless someone wrote it for him......
I think the surest way to determine if a judge is a kook or not is to see if they are a Democrat. If they are a Democrat, nothing they say should be accepted at face value.
Just as I predicted that Judge in Alabama (a bitter minority Democrat) would dismiss, she did. She won't say so, but I have no doubt she dismissed the case because she saw it as an attack on her and her party.
It is the same with the Supreme court. They are usually very predictable. On any issue before the court, the four Liberal incompetents will always be wrong, the four Conservative Judges will usually be correct, and the Waffler Kennedy will depend on which way the wind is blowing on any given day.
I Recall some wit discussing the litigation regarding the "gay marriage ban" voted on in California a while back. He said: "Why don't we save a lot of time and just ask Justice Kennedy what he thinks?"