Opinion ID: 1156349
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: An invented case

Text: In re Dostert, when it came to this Court, was an extraordinary judicial disciplinary proceeding arising under Rule II(J) of the Rules of Procedure for the Handling of Complaints Against Justices, Judges and Magistrates. The only party before the Court was Judge Pierre E. Dostert. The issue before the Court was whether to suspend Judge Dostert, after he had been convicted of criminal contempt. The case had nothing to do with judicial pensions. [13] Nevertheless, the Court wanted a different pension plan and was not patient enough for a case to be brought by normal means. Further, necessary parties, i.e., the President of the West Virginia Senate and the Speaker of the West Virginia House of Delegates, were not present. [14] These two parties are necessary because they represent the constitutional bodies of the legislative branch of government that fix salaries of the judiciary by law. [15] This Court only has the power to decide cases before it. An invented controversy without proper parties is not a case but an attempt to draft legislation. Therefore, that part of In re Dostert that deals with retirement issues is mere dicta and should be of no effect in a subsequent case.