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 <atropos@mac.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
Subject: Re: Inconvenient lefties
References: <utks3h$35980$1@dont-email.me> <aYScncSIyKVPe4_7nZ2dnZfqn_SdnZ2d@giganews.com> <17c419ad091d4f48$4305$2820980$c4d58e68@news.newsdemon.com> <17c41db9ecc8d4a4$33603$3384359$c2d58868@news.newsdemon.com> <coqdnUzoi9lCu477nZ2dnZfqnPYAAAAA@giganews.com> <17c458178a7167eb$33825$3384359$c2d58868@news.newsdemon.com> <atropos-BA215F.13313308042024@kd014101080069.ppp-bb.dion.ne.jp> <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: <atropos-A5E0ED.14215108042024@kd014101080069.ppp-bb.dion.ne.jp>
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 <never@nothere.com> wrote:

> On 4/8/2024 4:31 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> > In article
> > <17c458178a7167eb$33825$3384359$c2d58868@news.newsdemon.com>,
> >   moviePig <never@nothere.com> wrote:
> > 
> >> On 4/7/2024 7:06 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> >>> On Apr 7, 2024 at 2:47:21 PM PDT, "moviePig" <never@nothere.com> 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 *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?