Should Supreme Court Justice pre-ruling statements be considered binding law?

[gillkonam]

I realize the entire edifice of the precious right of judicial review stems from a ruling statement (a swerve really) on the part of Marshall. This isn't what I am referring to here, to belay confusion. I am specifically citing an statement incident tied to a ruling loosely based on the 14th Amendment that effectively made corporations citizens (or juristic persons, to be precise), without the instance of legal audit and deliberation of actual arguments. In Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company (1886), the Chief Justice preceding over the case made an announcement prior to hearing arguments that has since been regarded as binding, even as it has no ties to a decision.

To quote Chief Justice Waite: "The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does."

There had been previous lower court rulings that had established this strange transmutation of the rights of citizenship and the Justices had been briefed on the topic, but with that simple statement, a litany of right-adjacent decisions have been handed down as if that statement actually offered precedent. This act was literally an unprecedented extension of constitutional rights to US corporations. Even though this type of action has never been repeated, should the Congress explicitly pass a law to forbid it or should the court hear a case specifically as a way to disavow this pseudo-ruling and the judicial action that spawned it? Alternately, is an authentic extension of the role of Supreme Court judicial review? I have included the text of the 14th Amendment for reference.

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

[taters]

Id say no. Its opens the door to too many complication from SC holdings. They are often already problematic enough.

[Stax]

The question really becomes what exactly do you mean by binding law. After all, the only real authority of the Supreme Court is what they say in the first place. If you violate a clear directive in a pre-ruling statement (so, to use your example, make a law or something where corporations are not treated under the equal protection clause) the Court can just hear the case and officially rule the exact same way.

[Pharon]

I realize the entire edifice of the precious right of judicial review stems from a ruling statement (a swerve really) on the part of Marshall.
You might want to read the notes of the Constitutional Convention and the Federalist Papers, both of which preceded Marbury, and talk about this in great detail. The power of judicial review was not created out of thin air in 1803. The concept was fully formed and understood prior to that and this ruling was simply the first time the Court struck down a federal law. See this post of mine (http://forum.gorillamask.net/showthread.php?p=502954#post502954) for an example of what I mean.

Here are two prior cases where the Court asserted the power of judicial review:

First time the Court exercised judicial review upholding a federal law to be Constitutional: Hylton v. United States (1796)
First time the Court exercised judicial review striking down an unconstitutional state law: Calder v. Bull (1798)

To quote Chief Justice Waite: "The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does."

There had been previous lower court rulings that had established this strange transmutation of the rights of citizenship and the Justices had been briefed on the topic, but with that simple statement, a litany of right-adjacent decisions have been handed down as if that statement actually offered precedent. This act was literally an unprecedented extension of constitutional rights to US corporations. Even though this type of action has never been repeated, should the Congress explicitly pass a law to forbid it or should the court hear a case specifically as a way to disavow this pseudo-ruling and the judicial action that spawned it? Alternately, is an authentic extension of the role of Supreme Court judicial review? I have included the text of the 14th Amendment for reference.
I'm not entirely sure what the problem is here, why it was an expansion of rights, or why it's a bad thing. I mean, ultimately isn't a "corporation" simply a bunch of people getting together for a common business purpose? And if so, why wouldn't a "group of people" have any fewer rights than an "individual person?"