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: <utks3h$35980$1@dont-email.me> <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> <atropos-A4D504.11411606042024@kd014101080069.ppp-bb.dion.ne.jp> <17c3e0882b0394ca$5560$3037545$10d55a65@news.newsdemon.com>
Content-Language: en-US
From: trotsky <gmsingh@email.com>
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 <never@nothere.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 4/5/2024 7:11 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>> On Apr 5, 2024 at 3:57:07 PM PDT, "moviePig" <never@nothere.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 4/5/2024 4:30 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>    moviePig <never@nothere.com> 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.