Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
Subject: Re: Inconvenient lefties
Date: Sun, 7 Apr 2024 03:35:09 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 48
Message-ID: <uut49d$2ip30$2@dont-email.me>
References: <utks3h$35980$1@dont-email.me> <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>
Injection-Date: Sun, 07 Apr 2024 03:35:10 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="8b35f3a82528bad77260edde5fd5a277";
	logging-data="2712672"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+KhBo/FS+CFY2WaUq39/EzWndQZCMzcEA="
Cancel-Lock: sha1:ul/P6kU8mM50P5RQN/p/3p5KIWQ=
X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test77 (Sep 1, 2010)
Bytes: 3243

BTR1701  <atropos@mac.com> 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.

The jury makes a finding based on how they try the facts of the case.
The judge states what the law is. This is based on precedent -- some
going back to common law -- and reported appellate court decisions.
Judges are required to state the law based on applicable reported
decisions if they are in the geographical jurisdiction of that appellate
court. An appellate court decision is a statement of law applicable to
underlying trial courts. How does moviePig not know this?

I have opinions about the law. My opinions are not reported and they are
not binding, just me rambling on.