Date: Sun, 7 Apr 2024 04:30:24 -0500 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> Content-Language: en-US From: trotsky In-Reply-To: <17c3e0882b0394ca$5560$3037545$10d55a65@news.newsdemon.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Lines: 40 Path: ...!news-out.netnews.com!netnews.com!s1-1.netnews.com!feeder.usenetexpress.com!tr2.iad1.usenetexpress.com!news.newsdemon.com!not-for-mail Nntp-Posting-Date: Sun, 07 Apr 2024 09:30:24 +0000 X-Received-Bytes: 2506 X-Complaints-To: abuse@newsdemon.com Organization: NewsDemon - www.newsdemon.com Message-Id: <17c3f582918432ac$39$2218499$46d50c60@news.newsdemon.com> Bytes: 2833 On 4/6/24 10:05 PM, 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? Oath Keeper Twat fucked it up but the majority opinion in a SCOTUS case supersedes any other interpretations of a law.