Masterpiece Cakeshop - Colorado Redoubling Persecution while Remembering It's Aim

Harshaw said:

Ah. I see; you are running on a faulty understanding of how judicial opinions work. Unless this is just dishonesty, and you want it to be a "ruling" when it works for you and not when it doesn't, which seems reasonably likely.

The ruling is the holding. The rest is just background and discussion. Dicta.

It seems to me that everyone else in the thread, including whoever wrote the Wikipedia entry, understood that.


No. They can't. Because they aren't.

I'm not riding a merry-go-round on this. You're just wrong. There's nothing else to say.

Click to expand...

Ah. I see; you are running on a faulty understanding of how judicial opinions work. Unless this is just dishonesty, and you want it to be a "ruling" when it works for you and not when it doesn't, which seems reasonably likely

The ruling is the holding.

Click to expand...

To the contrary, there isn’t an agreed upon meaning of “ruling.” Which meaning was Wikipedia using? Was it seeking to invoke some precise legal meaning or relying upon a layperson meaning? It’s not clear. Wikipedia may not have been seeking to rely upon some arcane legal meaning of the word.

Even in the legal field, including legal academia, there isn’t agreement as to the meaning of “ruling” or that the “ruling” is the “Holding.” The legal field is rife with sources discussing the varied meanings and lamenting there isn’t an agreed upon meaning. Some describe the “ruling” to reference everything in the decision, the dicta, Holding(s) and judgment. Other sources don’t even bother to use the word. Some say a ruling is any expression of legal doctrine germane to a resolution of the case.

The fact is, nobody paused to define the word “ruling,” and in a sea of different understandings of the word and varying meanings attributed to the word, both layperson and by people in the legal field, it’s necessary to reach an agreement as to a mean, or at least attempt to do so.

Considering Wikipedia is written for the wider public, I rationally expected arcane legal meaning wouldn’t be relied upon by Wikipedia. So, I relied upon what is reasonably a layperson meaning of the word, primary source was Webster’s dictionary.

Did I exploit that situation? Yes.

It seems to me that everyone else in the thread, including whoever wrote the Wikipedia entry, understood that.

Click to expand...

Awfully presumptuous and speculative, and doubtful. It’s dubious a layperson, or the laypeople, both included in the category of “everyone,” were resorting to precise legalese of “Holding” and “ruling” and equating the two. In my experience, laypeople and the wider public aren’t familiar with the word “Holding” much less the meaning affixed to the word by the legal community. Same for the word “ruling.”

No. They can't. Because they aren't.

Click to expand...

Yes they can, depending on the meaning.

I'm not riding a merry-go-round on this. You're just wrong. There's nothing else to say

Click to expand...

No, I’m not wrong.

But, you are most certainly wrong in your statement Kennedy was stating a modification to that rule.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

NotreDame said:

To the contrary, there isn’t an agreed upon meaning of “ruling.” Which meaning was Wikipedia using? Was it seeking to invoke some precise legal meaning or relying upon a layperson meaning? It’s not clear. Wikipedia may not have been seeking to rely upon some arcane legal meaning of the word.

Even in the legal field, including legal academia, there isn’t agreement as to the meaning of “ruling” or that the “ruling” is the “Holding.” The legal field is rife with sources discussing the varied meanings and lamenting there isn’t an agreed upon meaning. Some describe the “ruling” to reference everything in the decision, the dicta, Holding(s) and judgment. Other sources don’t even bother to use the word. Some say a ruling is any expression of legal doctrine germane to a resolution of the case.

The fact is, nobody paused to define the word “ruling,” and in a sea of different understandings of the word and varying meanings attributed to the word, both layperson and by people in the legal field, it’s necessary to reach an agreement as to a mean, or at least attempt to do so.

Considering Wikipedia is written for the wider public, I rationally expected arcane legal meaning wouldn’t be relied upon by Wikipedia. So, I relied upon what is reasonably a layperson meaning of the word, primary source was Webster’s dictionary.

Did I exploit that situation? Yes.



Awfully presumptuous and speculative.



No, I’m not wrong.

But, you are most certainly wrong in your statement Kennedy was stating a modification to that rule.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

Flail away.

Harshaw said:

Flail away.

Click to expand...

Says you. But coming from someone who assumed an agreed upon meaning, for a word that lacks it, and dare to speak for how laypeople would understand the word, I’m not flailing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk