Date: Sun, 7 Apr 2024 17:47:21 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: Inconvenient lefties Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv References: <17c37b6c29057425$4757$3037545$10d55a65@news.newsdemon.com> <25Ccnb-dnerIwo37nZ2dnZfqn_SdnZ2d@giganews.com> <17c3845f233a098e$3282$2820980$c4d58e68@news.newsdemon.com> <0B2dnfnk4IawGI37nZ2dnZfqn_qdnZ2d@giganews.com> <17c3b829d977a4bb$361$1351842$40d50a60@news.newsdemon.com> <17c3e0882b0394ca$5560$3037545$10d55a65@news.newsdemon.com> <17c40c4736eda3a1$742$1326417$c8d58268@news.newsdemon.com> <17c419ad091d4f48$4305$2820980$c4d58e68@news.newsdemon.com> Content-Language: en-US From: moviePig In-Reply-To: <17c419ad091d4f48$4305$2820980$c4d58e68@news.newsdemon.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Lines: 93 Path: ...!news.misty.com!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!diablo1.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feeder.usenetexpress.com!tr2.iad1.usenetexpress.com!news.newsdemon.com!not-for-mail Nntp-Posting-Date: Sun, 07 Apr 2024 21:47:22 +0000 X-Received-Bytes: 4915 Organization: NewsDemon - www.newsdemon.com X-Complaints-To: abuse@newsdemon.com Message-Id: <17c41db9ecc8d4a4$33603$3384359$c2d58868@news.newsdemon.com> Bytes: 5311 On 4/7/2024 4:33 PM, trotsky 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 >>>>>>>>>>> contradicted?  Fyi, >>>>>>>>>>> *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. > > > More bullshit from the fake lawyer. > > https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/opinions.aspx > > > Opinions > > The term “opinions” as used on this website refers to several types of > writing by the Justices. > > The most well-known opinions are those released or announced in cases in > which the Court has heard oral argument. Each opinion sets out the > Court’s judgment and its reasoning and may include the majority or > principal opinion as well as any concurring or dissenting opinions. All > opinions in a single case are published together and are prefaced by a > syllabus prepared by the Reporter of Decisions that summarizes the > Court’s decision. The Justice who authors the majority or principal > opinion often will summarize the opinion from the bench during a Court > session. > > The Court may also dispose of cases in per curiam opinions, which do not > identify the author. These cases frequently resolve cases summarily, > often without oral argument. But per curiam opinions have sometimes been > issued in argued cases. > > In-chambers opinions are written by an individual Justice to dispose of > an application by a party for interim relief, e.g., for a stay of the > judgment of the court below, for vacation of a stay, or for a temporary > injunction. > > Justices may also write opinions relating to the orders of the Court, > e.g., to dissent from a denial of certiorari or to concur in that denial. Elsewhere, I posted an authoritative quote to the effect that an opinion may contain several -- sometimes differing -- opinions. So, what an opinion "is" seems arguably to be just a matter of... well, you know...