Liste des Groupes | Revenir à ra tv |
On 4/6/2024 2:41 PM, BTR1701 wrote:Oath Keeper Twat fucked it up but the majority opinion in a SCOTUS case supersedes any other interpretations of a law.In article <17c3b829d977a4bb$361$1351842$40d50a60@news.newsdemon.com>,No? The law *isn't* text that SCOTUS has opinions about? ...as I may?
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,No one's muzzling or prohibiting you from making contradictory
*that* would be a violation of 'free speech'...
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.
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.