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: <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> <atropos-8F2975.20213706042024@kd014101080069.ppp-bb.dion.ne.jp> <17c40c4736eda3a1$742$1326417$c8d58268@news.newsdemon.com> <aYScncSIyKVPe4_7nZ2dnZfqn_SdnZ2d@giganews.com> <17c419ad091d4f48$4305$2820980$c4d58e68@news.newsdemon.com>
Content-Language: en-US
From: moviePig <never@nothere.com>
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 <never@nothere.com> wrote:
>>> On 4/6/2024 11:21 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>> In article <17c3e0882b0394ca$5560$3037545$10d55a65@news.newsdemon.com>,
>>>> moviePig <never@nothere.com> 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?
>>>>
>>>> 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...