Re: Inconvenient lefties

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?