Path: ...!feeds.phibee-telecom.net!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!diablo1.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feeder.usenetexpress.com!tr3.iad1.usenetexpress.com!69.80.99.22.MISMATCH!local-2.nntp.ord.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 08 Apr 2024 21:13:38 +0000 From: BTR1701 Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv Subject: Re: Inconvenient lefties References: <17c419ad091d4f48$4305$2820980$c4d58e68@news.newsdemon.com> <17c41db9ecc8d4a4$33603$3384359$c2d58868@news.newsdemon.com> <17c458178a7167eb$33825$3384359$c2d58868@news.newsdemon.com> <17c46a5c84e4cb4d$40413$3326957$c6d58c68@news.newsdemon.com> User-Agent: MT-NewsWatcher/3.5.3b3 (Intel Mac OS X) Date: Mon, 08 Apr 2024 14:21:51 -0700 Message-ID: Lines: 76 X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com X-Trace: sv3-KEmQP83eW4nB1tr1sh8T9WGjtOPDhnP51LsYRt63j/FY/4ifkDQjMYVIvMURxfm5xuV41g9Bl3/a3lk!Nnr5OHM28hqgUE+V5Yq8JjBzRZ5nwBGYnNCpkfim4BDelVPi0FltV5YycfjuvCPUQY7KaQvas2ou!mopIvTL+d3hBiwAZizCmTpg= X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly X-Postfilter: 1.3.40 Bytes: 4920 In article <17c46a5c84e4cb4d$40413$3326957$c6d58c68@news.newsdemon.com>, moviePig wrote: > On 4/8/2024 4:31 PM, BTR1701 wrote: > > In article > > <17c458178a7167eb$33825$3384359$c2d58868@news.newsdemon.com>, > > moviePig wrote: > > > >> On 4/7/2024 7:06 PM, BTR1701 wrote: > >>> On Apr 7, 2024 at 2:47:21 PM PDT, "moviePig" wrote: > >>> > >>>>> On 4/7/24 1:32 PM, BTR1701 wrote: > >>>>>> moviePig wrote: > >>>>>>> On 4/6/2024 11:21 PM, BTR1701 wrote: > >>>>>>>> In article > >>>>>>>> <17c3e0882b0394ca$5560$3037545$10d55a65@news.newsdemon.com>, > >>>>>>>> moviePig wrote: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> On 4/6/2024 2:41 PM, BTR1701 wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> In article > >>>>>>>>>> <17c3b829d977a4bb$361$1351842$40d50a60@news.newsdemon.com>, > >>>>>>>>>> moviePig wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> On 4/5/2024 7:11 PM, BTR1701 wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 5, 2024 at 3:57:07 PM PDT, "moviePig" > >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/5/2024 4:30 PM, BTR1701 wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> moviePig wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What *opinion* -- of anything anywhere -- can't be *that* > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would be a violation of 'free speech'... > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> No one's muzzling or prohibiting you from making contradictory > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> statements regarding the SCOTUS ruling. However, your right to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> free speech doesn't immunize you from being wrong or bar others > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> from pointing out your wrongness. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> ...where "wrongness" means "of differing opinion". > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> You can have an opinion that SCOTUS decided wrongly and wish it > >>>>>>>>>>>> had made a different ruling but you can't have an opinion that > >>>>>>>>>>>> the law is other than it is. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> The 'law' is what SCOTUS has opinions about. I can have *my* > >>>>>>>>>>> opinion about either or both. Therein, the only "wrong" would be > >>>>>>>>>>> a misquoting. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> No, the law is what it is and it's not what you claim. You can > >>>>>>>>>> have your own opinions but you can't have your own facts. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> No? The law *isn't* text that SCOTUS has opinions about? ...as I > >>>>>>>>> may? > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> No, SCOTUS opinions become the law. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Including the dissenting ones? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> The dissent isn't the opinion of the Court. > >>>> > >>>> Elsewhere, I posted an authoritative quote to the effect that an opinion > >>>> may contain several -- sometimes differing -- opinions. > >>> > >>> But *the* opinion is the majority opinion. > >> > >> Where "*the*" means "the majority", but not where it means "the only". > > > > Sure, there's also the "moviePig opinion" lurking about out there but no > > one's going to cite that in a brief and no lower court judge will give > > it any credence when deciding matters of law. > > So, it'll get the same treatment SCOTUS gives SCOTUS opinions... Yeah, it was such a shame that Plessy was overturned by Brown vs. Board, wasn't it?