On 4/7/24 4:47 PM, moviePig wrote:
> 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...

No, what a SCOTUS opinion is specifically spelled out in what I just posted.

On 4/7/24 6:06 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
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>
>> 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.

You're definitely not a lawyer.

On 4/5/24 6:17 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> On Mar 30, 2024 at 9:05:52 AM PDT, "FPP" <fredp1571@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 3/29/24 2:02 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> In article <uu6j1t$b577$12@dont-email.me>, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 3/28/24 6:06 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>> moviePig <never@nothere.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/28/2024 2:31 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>> In article
>>>>>>> <17c0fc54e55b8534$37200$3384359$c2d58868@news.newsdemon.com>,
>>>>>>> moviePig <never@nothere.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 3/28/2024 12:11 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Mar 27, 2024 at 8:05:40 PM PDT, "moviePig" <never@nothere.com>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Are you disputing laws against hate speech or how they're enforced?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Both. Hate speech is protected speech per the Supreme Court and any laws
>>>>>>> to the contrary are unconstitutional.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie, 432 U.S. 43
>>>>>>> (1977)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> One cold night, a homeless man builds and lights a bonfire that destroys
>>>>>> a family's manicured lawn. Elsewhere, a well-known redneck erects and
>>>>>> burns a wooden cross, destroying the lawn of a black family.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> To your mind, are these infractions fully equivalent to each other?
>>>>>
>>>>> Those are crimes, not speech. You didn't ask about hate crimes. You asked
>>>>> about hate speech.
>>>>>
>>>> So change it to incitement to commit a crime by speech, then.
>>>
>>> That's our Effa, always trying to get around the 1st Amendment because,
>>> like most leftists, he fundamentally hates the idea of not being able to
>>> control what people can and cannot say.
>>>
>>> (And no, you smooth-brained dimwit, a charge of incitement can't be
>>> sustained without a crowd present to, ya know, incite.)
>>
>> Your side is banning words, and banning books, and banning curriculum
>> there, Sparky.
>
> Who's banning words and policing the language?
>
>
> https://video.twimg.com/amplify_video/1776348840171347968/vid/avc1/482x270/7c-0yRyX-G2NI4o-.mp4?tag=14
>
> CT State Senator Martha Marx (D) says only using the term "pregnant mother" is
> going down a "slippery slope" because then we also have to include "pregnant
> father".
>
> She proposes the government only use the term "pregnant person" because it's
> most inclusive and covers "every person that will show up with a baby in their
> womb".
>
>

Republicans. Rick Scott banned "climate change", for fuck's sake.
Ask any librarian who's banning books.

--
"Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of a man’s mind." - OC
Bible 25B.G.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ek8kap93bmk0q5w/D%20U%20N%20E%20Part%20II.jpg?dl=0

Gracie, age 6.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/0es3xolxka455iw/BetterThingsToDo.jpg?dl=0

On 4/6/24 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.
>

Corrupt and illegitimate courts make corrupt and illegitimate laws.

--
"Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of a man’s mind." - OC
Bible 25B.G.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ek8kap93bmk0q5w/D%20U%20N%20E%20Part%20II.jpg?dl=0

Gracie, age 6.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/0es3xolxka455iw/BetterThingsToDo.jpg?dl=0

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
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>
>> 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".

In article <uv0vc7$3hsmc$4@dont-email.me>, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On 4/6/24 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.

> Corrupt and illegitimate courts make corrupt and illegitimate laws.

The court that decided the Skokie case (which is what we're talking
about here) was full of leftists. Weird that you'd be calling them
corrupt and/or that their decisions are illegitimate.

I guess that's all you have left in your zeal to pretend we have laws
against 'hate speech' in America.

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.

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...

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?

atropos@mac.com wrote:
> "trotsky" wrote:
>> On 4/6/24 11:21 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>> > moviePig <never@nothere.com> wrote:
>> >> On 4/6/2024 2:41 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>> >>> moviePig <never@nothere.com> wrote:
>> >>>> On 4/5/2024 7:11 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>> >>>>> "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.
>
>> Corrupt and illegitimate courts make corrupt and illegitimate laws.
>
>The court that decided the Skokie case (which is what we're talking
>about here) was full of leftists. Weird that you'd be calling them
>corrupt and/or that their decisions are illegitimate.

That's because "trotsky", like most leftists, are antisemites.
That he had already demonstrated here.

--
Let's go Brandon!

On 4/8/2024 4:28 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <uv0vc7$3hsmc$4@dont-email.me>, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 4/6/24 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.
>
>> Corrupt and illegitimate courts make corrupt and illegitimate laws.
>
> The court that decided the Skokie case (which is what we're talking
> about here) was full of leftists. Weird that you'd be calling them
> corrupt and/or that their decisions are illegitimate.
>
> I guess that's all you have left in your zeal to pretend we have laws
> against 'hate speech' in America.

Nobody has pretended we have such laws. In fact, the genesis of this
snipe hunt was my riposte to FPP's claim that there *are* no such laws.

Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

>As you may recall, Gov Pritzker had kindly offered to run for president
>in 2024 if Biden weren't running and if anybody in the party wanted him
>to. The party very much DID NOT want Pritzker to run for president in
>2024 under any circumstances.

>So Chicago got the Democratic convention instead.

>For those who don't know, the United Center (1994), home of the Bulls
>and Blackhawks, was built to house the 1996 Democratic convention.

>We have the usual ritual. Protestors seek a permit to protest. Cops
>claim there aren't enough cops to police both the convention and the
>protestors.

>Will the protestors kindly relocate into the middle of Lake Michigan?
>Well, they were offered Columbus Drive in Grant Park. Now, protestors at
>the 1968 convention did not care about the International Ampitheater, on
>the near south side. They did march in Grant Park, because it was across
>the street from the convention hotel the Stevens Hotel (ok ok, it's been
>the Hilton since 1951) and downtown tv stations could film them.

>The protestors are suing to march near the convention.

ACLU of Illinois has filed suit.

Nearly every parade permit application filed for marching during the
convention has been denied. This group of protestors wanted to march on
Michigan Avenue which passes by numerous hotels but were denied. They
said they'll march without a permit.

Chicago has yet to say what security perimeter it will establish. It
will likely include my office building and home in the suburbs, and
reach as far west as San Diego.

https://chicago.suntimes.com/2024-democratic-national-convention/2024/05/02/aclu-democratic-national-convention-protest-united-center

On May 2, 2024 at 5:14:49 PM PDT, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

> Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>
>> As you may recall, Gov Pritzker had kindly offered to run for president
>> in 2024 if Biden weren't running and if anybody in the party wanted him
>> to. The party very much DID NOT want Pritzker to run for president in
>> 2024 under any circumstances.
>
>> So Chicago got the Democratic convention instead.
>
>> For those who don't know, the United Center (1994), home of the Bulls
>> and Blackhawks, was built to house the 1996 Democratic convention.
>
>> We have the usual ritual. Protestors seek a permit to protest. Cops
>> claim there aren't enough cops to police both the convention and the
>> protestors.
>
>> Will the protestors kindly relocate into the middle of Lake Michigan?
>> Well, they were offered Columbus Drive in Grant Park. Now, protestors at
>> the 1968 convention did not care about the International Ampitheater, on
>> the near south side. They did march in Grant Park, because it was across
>> the street from the convention hotel the Stevens Hotel (ok ok, it's been
>> the Hilton since 1951) and downtown tv stations could film them.
>
>> The protestors are suing to march near the convention.
>
> ACLU of Illinois has filed suit.
>
> Nearly every parade permit application filed for marching during the
> convention has been denied. This group of protestors wanted to march on
> Michigan Avenue which passes by numerous hotels but were denied. They
> said they'll march without a permit.
>
> Chicago has yet to say what security perimeter it will establish. It
> will likely include my office building and home in the suburbs, and
> reach as far west as San Diego.
>
>
> https://chicago.suntimes.com/2024-democratic-national-convention/2024/05/02/aclu-democratic-national-convention-protest-united-center

Chicago won't be in charge of the depth and breadth of the security
perimeter.

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>May 2, 2024 at 5:14:49 PM PDT, Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>:
>>Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

>>>As you may recall, Gov Pritzker had kindly offered to run for president
>>>in 2024 if Biden weren't running and if anybody in the party wanted him
>>>to. The party very much DID NOT want Pritzker to run for president in
>>>2024 under any circumstances.

>>>So Chicago got the Democratic convention instead.

>>>For those who don't know, the United Center (1994), home of the Bulls
>>>and Blackhawks, was built to house the 1996 Democratic convention.

>>>We have the usual ritual. Protestors seek a permit to protest. Cops
>>>claim there aren't enough cops to police both the convention and the
>>>protestors.

>>>Will the protestors kindly relocate into the middle of Lake Michigan?
>>>Well, they were offered Columbus Drive in Grant Park. Now, protestors at
>>>the 1968 convention did not care about the International Ampitheater, on
>>>the near south side. They did march in Grant Park, because it was across
>>>the street from the convention hotel the Stevens Hotel (ok ok, it's been
>>>the Hilton since 1951) and downtown tv stations could film them.

>>>The protestors are suing to march near the convention.

>>ACLU of Illinois has filed suit.

>>Nearly every parade permit application filed for marching during the
>>convention has been denied. This group of protestors wanted to march on
>>Michigan Avenue which passes by numerous hotels but were denied. They
>>said they'll march without a permit.

>>Chicago has yet to say what security perimeter it will establish. It
>>will likely include my office building and home in the suburbs, and
>>reach as far west as San Diego.

>>https://chicago.suntimes.com/2024-democratic-national-convention/2024/05/02/aclu-democratic-national-convention-protest-united-center

>Chicago won't be in charge of the depth and breadth of the security
>perimeter.

I'm suggesting that whatever the Secret Service designates will be
greatly enlarged by local police as an excuse to deny parade permits to
inconvenient lefties that will seek to embarass the governor and the
mayor.

On 5/2/24 7:26 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> On May 2, 2024 at 5:14:49 PM PDT, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>
>> Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>
>>> As you may recall, Gov Pritzker had kindly offered to run for president
>>> in 2024 if Biden weren't running and if anybody in the party wanted him
>>> to. The party very much DID NOT want Pritzker to run for president in
>>> 2024 under any circumstances.
>>
>>> So Chicago got the Democratic convention instead.
>>
>>> For those who don't know, the United Center (1994), home of the Bulls
>>> and Blackhawks, was built to house the 1996 Democratic convention.
>>
>>> We have the usual ritual. Protestors seek a permit to protest. Cops
>>> claim there aren't enough cops to police both the convention and the
>>> protestors.
>>
>>> Will the protestors kindly relocate into the middle of Lake Michigan?
>>> Well, they were offered Columbus Drive in Grant Park. Now, protestors at
>>> the 1968 convention did not care about the International Ampitheater, on
>>> the near south side. They did march in Grant Park, because it was across
>>> the street from the convention hotel the Stevens Hotel (ok ok, it's been
>>> the Hilton since 1951) and downtown tv stations could film them.
>>
>>> The protestors are suing to march near the convention.
>>
>> ACLU of Illinois has filed suit.
>>
>> Nearly every parade permit application filed for marching during the
>> convention has been denied. This group of protestors wanted to march on
>> Michigan Avenue which passes by numerous hotels but were denied. They
>> said they'll march without a permit.
>>
>> Chicago has yet to say what security perimeter it will establish. It
>> will likely include my office building and home in the suburbs, and
>> reach as far west as San Diego.
>>
>>
>> https://chicago.suntimes.com/2024-democratic-national-convention/2024/05/02/aclu-democratic-national-convention-protest-united-center
>
> Chicago won't be in charge of the depth and breadth of the security
> perimeter.

The city or the rock group?

On 5/2/24 7:26 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> On May 2, 2024 at 5:14:49 PM PDT, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>
>> Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>
>>> As you may recall, Gov Pritzker had kindly offered to run for president
>>> in 2024 if Biden weren't running and if anybody in the party wanted him
>>> to. The party very much DID NOT want Pritzker to run for president in
>>> 2024 under any circumstances.
>>
>>> So Chicago got the Democratic convention instead.
>>
>>> For those who don't know, the United Center (1994), home of the Bulls
>>> and Blackhawks, was built to house the 1996 Democratic convention.
>>
>>> We have the usual ritual. Protestors seek a permit to protest. Cops
>>> claim there aren't enough cops to police both the convention and the
>>> protestors.
>>
>>> Will the protestors kindly relocate into the middle of Lake Michigan?
>>> Well, they were offered Columbus Drive in Grant Park. Now, protestors at
>>> the 1968 convention did not care about the International Ampitheater, on
>>> the near south side. They did march in Grant Park, because it was across
>>> the street from the convention hotel the Stevens Hotel (ok ok, it's been
>>> the Hilton since 1951) and downtown tv stations could film them.
>>
>>> The protestors are suing to march near the convention.
>>
>> ACLU of Illinois has filed suit.
>>
>> Nearly every parade permit application filed for marching during the
>> convention has been denied. This group of protestors wanted to march on
>> Michigan Avenue which passes by numerous hotels but were denied. They
>> said they'll march without a permit.
>>
>> Chicago has yet to say what security perimeter it will establish. It
>> will likely include my office building and home in the suburbs, and
>> reach as far west as San Diego.
>>
>>
>> https://chicago.suntimes.com/2024-democratic-national-convention/2024/05/02/aclu-democratic-national-convention-protest-united-center
>
> Chicago won't be in charge of the depth and breadth of the security
> perimeter.

Why, are your friends the Oath Keepers planning something? That sounds
like a meeting of the minds.