Ruth Bader Ginsburg has been undergoing chemotherapy to treat recurrence of cancer

[ducks]

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ruth-bader-ginsburg-has-been-undergoing-chemotherapy-to-treat-recurrence-of-cancer

[Splits]

ducks really wants her to die

[boutons_deux]

All rightwingnutjobs want her dead, or at least off the court, ASAP.

[Reck]

ducks really wants her to die


“I have often said I would remain a member of the Court as long as I can do the job full steam,” Ginsburg said. “I remain fully able to do that.”

Ducks:
https://www.clipartkey.com/mpngs/m/182-1827781_troll-face-meme-angry-happy-mad-mask-fake.png

[Will Hunting]

Meh, plenty of Dems got excited when Scalia croaked, these threads don’t change the fact RBG is a self-absorbed c unt for putting a Supreme Court seat in jeopardy because she was sure Hillary would win and wanted :crya female president:cry to pick her replacement.

Once Obama won his 2nd term RBG and Breyer should have stepped down well before the 2014 midterm bloodbath.

[TSA]

The liberal justice, 87, has faced a slew of health concerns in recent years. She has previously revealed several bouts with cancer including colorectal, pancreatic and lung cancers.

In May, Ginsburg was hospitalized with an infection caused by a gallstone.

In November, she was admitted to Johns Hopkins Hospital after experiencing chills and a fever.

In 2018, she was hospitalized with three fractured ribs after a fall at her office.




https://www.clipartkey.com/mpngs/m/182-1827781_troll-face-meme-angry-happy-mad-mask-fake.png

[Reck]

Meh, plenty of Dems got excited when Scalia croaked, these threads don’t change the fact RBG is a self-absorbed c unt for putting a Supreme Court seat in jeopardy because she was sure Hillary would win and wanted :crya female president:cry to pick her replacement.

Once Obama won his 2nd term RBG and Breyer should have stepped down well before the 2014 midterm bloodbath.

Wishful thinking.

Would you willingly retire from a job you've dream of having your entire life to make room for someone who may or may not be better at the job than you? Can you say Garland would have been more progressive than RBG?

No one thinks of retiring when they're in relatively good health. specially in sweet ass jobs like these.

[Reck]

TSA what exactly is your point? That she's hard to kill?

I'm more than ok with the fact she's been able to give people like you the middle finger for such a long time.

[Will Hunting]

Wishful thinking.

Would you willingly retire from a job you've dream of having your entire life to make room for someone who may or may not be better at the job than you? Can you say Garland would have been more progressive than RBG?

No one thinks of retiring when they're in relatively good health. specially in sweet ass jobs like these.
Except the Republican SCOTUS judges take one for the team and retire early all the time. Sandra Day OConnor retired in 2005 and 15 years later isn’t dead/doesn’t have degenerative health issues (she serves as an absentee COA judge all the time). Kennedy retired early as well, and those were the moderate conservative judges.

[FrostKing]

Resides over the Supreme Court

Wears a diaper

Interesting system of government

[Th'Pusher]

Resides over the Supreme Court

Wears a diaper

Interesting system of government

Does she have a one bedroom apartment on top of the courthouse?

[hater]

Poor lady

She makes pelosi look like a prime sophia loren

[CosmicCowboy]

Can you just imagine if she croaked and Trump/McConnell rammed through a Judge appointment before November? Boutons and RandomGuys heads would explode.

[DMC]

Wishful thinking.

Would you willingly retire from a job you've dream of having your entire life to make room for someone who may or may not be better at the job than you? Can you say Garland would have been more progressive than RBG?

No one thinks of retiring when they're in relatively good health. specially in sweet ass jobs like these.

Dream of having her entire life? She's been there damn near that long. Yeah I would retire but today's SC justices are stars. They don't ever want that to go away.

[DMC]

Resides over the Supreme Court

Wears a diaper

Interesting system of government
Executive branch close to that

[Spurtacular]

This is why Supreme Court needs term limits. No more entitled justices.

[baseline bum]

Except the Republican SCOTUS judges take one for the team and retire early all the time. Sandra Day OConnor retired in 2005 and 15 years later isn’t dead/doesn’t have degenerative health issues (she serves as an absentee COA judge all the time). Kennedy retired early as well, and those were the moderate conservative judges.

Kind of surprised Uncle Thomas hasn't retired yet.

[koriwhat]

This old bitch needs to step down from the SC. This needed to happen years ago tbh.

[Will Hunting]

This is why Supreme Court needs term limits. No more entitled justices.
Couldn’t agree more. No one is going to convince me that a cancer patient in her late 80s has the same mental altitude that same 30 years younger has.

[Will Hunting]

Kind of surprised Uncle Thomas hasn't retired yet.
I’m hoping he has a dormant case of sickle cell anemia that comes to life next year after Biden takes office.

[Spurtacular]

Couldn’t agree more. No one is going to convince me that a cancer patient in her late 80s has the same mental altitude that same 30 years younger has.

Even still, why should Americans have to be stuck with anyone for life in the highest position in the land?
We shouldn't believe that anyone is that impeccable.

[Reck]

Couldn’t agree more. No one is going to convince me that a cancer patient in her late 80s has the same mental altitude that same 30 years younger has.

Buttiegieg would have proposed a 10-year limit on them. I tend to agree.

[Trainwreck2100]

I’m hoping he has a dormant case of sickle cell anemia that comes to life next year after Biden takes office.

i could see him retiring if Trump loses, then they rush it through, who knows when they'll have both branches again and after the shit McConnell pulled I doubt a Dem run Senate pushes any R nominated justice through

[Will Hunting]

Even still, why should Americans have to be stuck with anyone for life in the highest position in the land?
We shouldn't believe that anyone is that impeccable.
The argument is that a lifetime appointment makes it so they’re not beholden to special interests.

I think an appointment with one set term and they can’t be renominated after the 1 term would be fine in terms of limiting the special interest influence though. The line that I don’t think we can cross is requiring SCOTUS judges to have to campaign and raise money.

[Spurtacular]

Buttiegieg would have proposed a 10-year limit on them.

And you're basing this on what?

[Spurtacular]

The argument is that a lifetime appointment makes it so they’re not beholden to special interests.

That's a false argument from the establishment. They can get removed at any time right now.

And they are beholden to special interests, imo. It's how they got there.

[ElNono]

They should just put a cap on age... that way, you can't be doing this whole 'let keep her in vegetative state until the next election'.

Problem obviously is that it requires a Constitutional amendment, IIRC. There's better odds of tholdren being right once than passing an amendment nowadays, tbh.

[Spurtacular]

I think an appointment with one set term and they can’t be renominated after the 1 term would be fine in terms of limiting the special interest influence though. The line that I don’t think we can cross is requiring SCOTUS judges to have to campaign and raise money.

That would be a start. I don't think they need renomination. We don't have a shortage of people to fill the seats.

I don't know why they'd have to campaign. It's an appointment, not an election.

[Will Hunting]

i could see him retiring if Trump loses, then they rush it through, who knows when they'll have both branches again and after the shit McConnell pulled I doubt a Dem run Senate pushes any R nominated justice through
I think that would be a bridge too far and wouldn’t work. Trying to ram a SCOTUS nominee through after the American people have already voted for a new president and new senate majority would be some House of Cards type shit.

[Will Hunting]

That would be a start. I don't think they need renomination. We don't have a shortage of people to fill the seats.

I don't know why they'd have to campaign. It's an appointment, not an election.
Yeah I’d be against renomination. The intent is that they can vote with unimpeachable integrity as they don’t need to worry about currying political favor for a renomination.

And they wouldn’t have to campaign, what I was saying is that I wouldnt want a scenario where they did.

[ElNono]

The thing Congress can do, and has done before, to game this shit is increase the number of SCOTUS members...

[baseline bum]

I think that would be a bridge too far and wouldn’t work. Trying to ram a SCOTUS nominee through after the American people have already voted for a new president and new senate majority would be some House of Cards type shit.

Why wouldn't it work? Trump has annulled the first amendment and gotten away with it, why would a lame duck session appointment be worse?

[baseline bum]

The thing Congress can do, and has done before, to game this shit is increase the number of SCOTUS members...

Which they should do if the Democrats take the Senate. McConnell already set the precedent that 9 is arbitrary when he decided to decrease the number of SCOTUS members.

[Will Hunting]

Why wouldn't it work? Trump has annulled the first amendment and gotten away with it, why would a lame duck session appointment be worse?
The way the Kavanaugh pick is biting Collins in the ass I think senators like Toomey with vulnerable seats in 2022 would be worried about going along with it.

[Will Hunting]

Which they should do if the Democrats take the Senate. McConnell already set the precedent that 9 is arbitrary when he decided to decrease the number of SCOTUS members.
It’ll never happen but Dems should go medieval if they retake the senate and the White House. End the filibuster ASAP and start ramming legislation through. Combine North and South Dakota while we’re at it.

[boutons_deux]

The thing Congress can do, and has done before, to game this shit is increase the number of SCOTUS members...

I think since McConnell stole a seat from Obama,

and since McConnell has polluted the Federal judiciary with shit,

Dems should fuck them back by sitting 2 more very progressive judges for a total of 11 judges, 6 progressive to 5 regressive.

I expect McConnell/Leo/oligarchy will stack every single open Federal judgeship with shit before 20 Jan.

[Trainwreck2100]

I think that would be a bridge too far and wouldn’t work. Trying to ram a SCOTUS nominee through after the American people have already voted for a new president and new senate majority would be some House of Cards type shit.

McConnell held a senate seat for months so "the voters could figure it out" and if the same were to happen now, which is what we're talking about, would have no problem saying "fuck the voters", there is nothing they won't do.

[baseline bum]

The way the Kavanaugh pick is biting Collins in the ass I think senators like Toomey with vulnerable seats in 2022 would be worried about going along with it.

I doubt it, I think they'd rather get one last fuck you to the left in.

[hater]

Can you just imagine if she croaked and Trump/McConnell rammed through a Judge appointment before November? Boutons and RandomGuys heads would explode.

Trumps picks are actually kinda liberal

I prefer it to a Pence pick tbqh :lol

[Will Hunting]

I doubt it, I think they'd rather get one last fuck you to the left in.
Yeah Nevermind, I forgot Ron Johnson and Burr are retiring in 2022, so it’s only Toomey who might go against it, and that’s not enough.

[Trainwreck2100]

It’ll never happen but Dems should go medieval if they retake the senate and the White House. End the filibuster ASAP and start ramming legislation through. Combine North and South Dakota while we’re at it.

Not even that POS McConnel would end the filibuster, and if the Dems were to do it, it would bite them in the ass just like ending 60 votes for judicial appointment did. The republicans have the money to play the long game, and if they ever get control like they did in 2016, which they absolutely can because Trump's base ain't going away, they will absolutely fuck the American people even worse.

[hater]

Kavanaughty is ma noga

Id drink a few beers with that pervert :lol

[Will Hunting]

Trumps picks are actually kinda liberal

I prefer it to a Pence pick tbqh :lol
I’d call Gorsuch principled and not a blind partisan shill like Alito is, but Kavanaugh is a conservative partisan masquerading as a Supreme Court judge. There’s no rational argument that he’s “kinda liberal”

[hater]

I’d call Gorsuch principled and not a blind partisan shill like Alito is, but Kavanaugh is a conservative partisan masquerading as a Supreme Court judge. There’s no rational argument that he’s “kinda liberal”

He drinks and fucks pretty liberally imo :lol

Hes a CUNTO

CONSERVATIVE UNDER NAME THUS ONLY :lol

[Trainwreck2100]

Kavanaughty is ma noga

Id drink a few beers with that pervert :lol

I got nothing wrong with Kavanaugh the man, Ford was probably full of shit, and even if she wasn't, she can fuck off for waiting 30 years. But he'll fuck over the poor like the good federalist society member he is.

[baseline bum]

Not even that POS McConnel would end the filibuster, and if the Dems were to do it, it would bite them in the ass just like ending 60 votes for judicial appointment did. The republicans have the money to play the long game, and if they ever get control like they did in 2016, which they absolutely can because Trump's base ain't going away, they will absolutely fuck the American people even worse.

McConnell would never end the filibuster because it grants him enormous power no matter what the political climate of the US is since he's guaranteed to have 40+ senators at pretty much all times.

[Will Hunting]

Not even that POS McConnel would end the filibuster, and if the Dems were to do it, it would bite them in the ass just like ending 60 votes for judicial appointment did. The republicans have the money to play the long game, and if they ever get control like they did in 2016, which they absolutely can because Trump's base ain't going away, they will absolutely fuck the American people even worse.
That’s what I thought too but look what happened with Obamacare, they had two years to repeal it and didn’t need 60 votes because they could do it through budget reconciliation, ultimately though there were always just enough Republicans who didn’t want to put their name on something that took healthcare away from millions of Americans. I think the same thing would happen with for example UBI legislation - even when the Republicans ultimately got control back, good luck finding enough of them who’d want to take universal basic income away from the hundreds of millions of Americans living in near poverty.

It would never happen though since Pelosi and Jewmer are just as against real progressive legislation as McConnell is.

[Spurtacular]

Yeah I’d be against renomination. The intent is that they can vote with unimpeachable integrity as they don’t need to worry about currying political favor for a renomination.

And they wouldn’t have to campaign, what I was saying is that I wouldnt want a scenario where they did.

Judges are susceptible to impeachment now. If anyone is of that low of character, we shouldn't be proactively protecting them in our processes.

[hater]

I got nothing wrong with Kavanaugh the man, Ford was probably full of shit, and even if she wasn't, she can fuck off for waiting 30 years. But he'll fuck over the poor like the good federalist society member he is.

They all fuck over the poor. Please dont tell me you buy Ginsbergs act

[Spurtacular]

I’d call Gorsuch principled and not a blind partisan shill like Alito is, but Kavanaugh is a conservative partisan masquerading as a Supreme Court judge. There’s no rational argument that he’s “kinda liberal”

Roberts is a liberal shill too. And the two appointees that Obama did was amateur hour. I don't think that term limits gets rid of shills; but it at least limits how long we have to deal with them.

[Will Hunting]

Roberts is a liberal shill too. And the two appointees that Obama did was amateur hour. I don't think that term limits gets rid of shills; but it at least limits how long we have to deal with them.
Oh please, Roberts vote on Citizens United was as conservative as it gets. Who cares that he’s pro gay marriage, on the stuff that actually matters he’s conservative.

[Allan Rowe vs Wade]

Can you just imagine if she croaked and Trump/McConnell rammed through a Judge appointment before November? Boutons and RandomGuys heads would explode.

admittedly this would be epic

[Spurtacular]

Oh please, Roberts vote on Citizens United was as conservative as it gets. Who cares that he’s pro gay marriage, on the stuff that actually matters he’s conservative.

He decided Obamacare FFS. He's been the pivotal vote for liberals on a whole host of issues. I don't keep a list though. He's a Bush appointee. That shill wasn't going to appoint real conservatives, bro.

[spurraider21]

Oh please, Roberts vote on Citizens United was as conservative as it gets. Who cares that he’s pro gay marriage, on the stuff that actually matters he’s conservative.
lgbt rights actually matter to a lot of people

[baseline bum]

It would never happen though since Pelosi and Jewmer are just as against real progressive legislation as McConnell is.

this

[Spurtacular]

Roberts vote on Citizens United was as conservative as it gets.

That's dumb. That's a basic free speech issue that Psycho Hillary hated. The fact that four justice voted against free speech shows what a joke SCOTUS is, tbh.

[Allan Rowe vs Wade]

i think a single 25-year term would suffice.

[Will Hunting]

He decided Obamacare FFS. He's been the pivotal vote for liberals on a whole host of issues. I don't keep a list though. He's a Bush appointee. That shill wasn't going to appoint real conservatives, bro.
Was his ruling on Obamacare wrong? The fact he didn’t politicize a Supreme Court ruling doesn’t make him a liberal, there’s nothing about Obamacare that’s unconstitutional.

:lmao Bush wasn’t going to appoint “real conservatives.” Sam Alito is the most conservative SCOTUS judge of all of them.

[hater]

He decided Obamacare FFS. He's been the pivotal vote for liberals on a whole host of issues. I don't keep a list though. He's a Bush appointee. That shill wasn't going to appoint real conservatives, bro.

Yup roberts is another liberal niga

These nigas dont know what a convmservative judge is :lol

The closest to it is the token negro

Well him and the fat soprano looking niga that died doing coke

[Will Hunting]

That's dumb. That's a basic free speech issue that Psycho Hillary hated. The fact that four justice voted against free speech shows what a joke SCOTUS is, tbh.
:lmao crying about deep state conspiracies but wanting corporations to use their “free speech” to buy elections.

[Spurtacular]

Was his ruling on Obamacare wrong? The fact he didn’t politicize a Supreme Court ruling doesn’t make him a liberal, there’s nothing about Obamacare that’s unconstitutional.

Taxing people for not paying the government? Yes, he was wrong. There's no Constitutional justification for that.

[Spurtacular]

:lmao Bush wasn’t going to appoint “real conservatives.” Sam Alito is the most conservative SCOTUS judge of all of them.

Even if that's true; he still neutralized himself with Roberts. That was maybe the point. Bush (Rove) was great at throwing crumbs.

[Will Hunting]

Taxing people for not paying the government? Yes, he was wrong. There's no Constitutional justification for that.
Roberts said that Obamacare was a tax, which the constitution allows for.

[Will Hunting]

Even if that's true; he still neutralized himself with Roberts. That was maybe the point. Bush (Rove) was great at throwing crumbs.
So did Bush appoint a conservative judge or not? You just said he didn’t.

[Spurtacular]

Yup roberts is another liberal niga

These nigas dont know what a convmservative judge is :lol

The closest to it is the token negro

Well him and the fat soprano looking niga that died doing coke

Soprano got murdered. He was real deal. Clarence Thomas, too. Chumpettes hate them hardcore.
Kavanaugh don't deserve to be compared to those two when it comes to character.

[Spurtacular]

So did Bush appoint a conservative judge or not? You just said he didn’t.

I tentatively gave you Alito. But I just told you that he neutralized it with Roberts. I don't recall him f*cking stuff up like Roberts in past cases.

[Will Hunting]

:lmao crying about deep state conspiracies but wanting corporations to use their “free speech” to buy elections.
:lol Derp not wanting to touch this contradiction with a 10 foot pole

”Deep state is everywhere man, but being able to flood elections with special interest money is just freedom of speech!”

[hater]

Soprano got murdered. He was real deal. Clarence Thomas, too. Chumpettes hate them hardcore.
Kavanaugh don't deserve to be compared to those two when it comes to character.

Soprano was in w the mob. He was a sick fuck :lol

Yup they cant talk shit about d negro cause hes black :lol

Hes basically a black nazi :lol

[Spurtacular]

Roberts said that Obamacare was a tax, which the constitution allows for.

Yea, and that's bull shit. It's a fine. It's compulsory submission. It's un-American. This is why Roberts is a hack like the other four. Total fucking shill.

[ElNono]

:lol Derp not wanting to touch this contradiction with a 10 foot pole

”Deep state is everywhere man, but being able to flood elections with special interest money is just freedom of speech!”

https://i.gifer.com/g2vI.gif

[boutons_deux]

i think a single 25-year term would suffice.

10 years, with no chance for repeating

[Will Hunting]

Yea, and that's bull shit. It's a fine. It's compulsory submission. It's un-American. This is why Roberts is a hack like the other four. Total fucking shill.
It’s a tax that you’re exempt from if you have healthcare. No different than taxes you can avoid or lower by having a mortgage, kids, etc. By your logic me paying FICA taxes so old people get free healthcare is compulsory submission as well.

Declaring something unconstitutional isn’t supposed to be a remedy used to expunge any legislation you don’t like. The fact that Roberts and Gorsuch have integrity and are purists who look to avoid modifying legislation as much as possible no matter whether its conservative or liberal legislation doesn’t make them liberals, it makes them nonpartisan judges which is what they’re supposed to be.

[Will Hunting]

https://i.gifer.com/g2vI.gif
:lmao

[Spurtacular]

:lol Derp not wanting to touch this contradiction with a 10 foot pole

”Deep state is everywhere man, but being able to flood elections with special interest money is just freedom of speech!”

I think you're seeing a pretend contradiction. Why should I be scared about people operating in the open if they're not infringing on other people's rights?

[Spurtacular]

It’s a tax that you’re exempt from if you have healthcare.

So, in other words not exempt. Nice philo.

[Will Hunting]

I think you're seeing a pretend contradiction. Why should I be scared about people operating in the open if they're not infringing on other people's rights?
You don’t see a contradiction between (i) fears of government being run by oligarchs/“deep state” and (ii) being in favor of billionaires having an outsized influence over politicians with PAC money?

You don’t think that a billionaire being able to create influence over a politician infringes on other people’s right to representation?

[Spurtacular]

No different than taxes you can avoid or lower by having a mortgage, kids, etc. By your logic me paying FICA taxes so old people get free healthcare is compulsory submission as well.

Yea, FICA is not Constitutional either. So yea, that is by my logic.

[Will Hunting]

Yea, FICA is not Constitutional either. So yea, that is by my logic.
Are income taxes as whole unconstitutional in your view?

[Spurtacular]

You don’t see a contradiction between (i) fears of government being run by oligarchs/“deep state” and (ii) being in favor of billionaires having an outsized influence over politicians with PAC money?

You don’t think that a billionaire being able to create influence over a politician infringes on other people’s right to representation?

I can see the same forces at play in some cases. But one is a shadow government and the other is operating above board (two quite different things).

I could easily argue that someone like Hillary wants to limit ads against her while the corporate media controls the narrative for her.

[Spurtacular]

Are income taxes as whole unconstitutional in your view?

Not for the same reason(s), but yes. The states never ratified the income tax amendment.

You see how the federal government doesn't feel beholden to the Constitution?

[Will Hunting]

The states never ratified the income tax amendment.
:lmao is this a conspiracy theory or something?

[Spurtacular]

:lmao is this a conspiracy theory or something?

No. That's a fact. You can look it up. Is your world view shattering? :lol

[ChumpDumper]

Not for the same reason(s), but yes. The states never ratified the income tax amendment.:lol of course they did.

[spurraider21]

42 states ratified the 16th amendment

[hater]

Clarence Thomas

Thats the nigas name :lol

A black supreme court nazi judge that nobody can touch because hes black the first black supreme judge and his name is clarence :lol

Fucking genius whoever pushed him through

And I think hes married to a white woman :lmao

Goddam trifecta

:lol

Cry about that snowflakes :lol

[ChumpDumper]

Clarence Thomas

Thats the nigas name :lol

A black supreme court nazi judge that nobody can touch because hes black the first black supreme judge and his name is clarence :lol

Fucking genius whoever pushed him through

And I think hes married to a white woman :lmao

Goddam trifecta

:lol

Cry about that snowflakes :lolUm....

[hater]

Um....

Exactly

You cant talk shit about him :lol

[ChumpDumper]

Exactly

You cant talk shit about him :lolNo, I was talking about your whiffing on the "facts."

[hater]

:lmao

Can u imagine if kavanaughtys wife did this :lol

https://twitter.com/DrewWilderTV/status/1281680335722426372?s=19

[CosmicCowboy]

I'm looking forward to a Biden Presidency. Helicopter money incoming.

[ducks]

If the president has to have a health report every year I think the Supreme Court judges do
I do not think she is healthy enough to be a judge

[Will Hunting]

No. That's a fact. You can look it up. Is your world view shattering? :lol
I did look it up. It became law after Delaware ratified it and became the 36th state to do so.

Im anxious to see your proof of how it’s a “fact” that the states never ratified the 16th amendment.

[Spurtacular]

I did look it up. It became law after Delaware ratified it and became the 36th state to do so.

Im anxious to see your proof of how it’s a “fact” that the states never ratified the 16th amendment.

https://www.thelawthatneverwas.com/


The Discovery
Article V of the U.S. Constitution defines the ratification process and requires three-fourths of the states to ratify any amendment proposed by Congress. There were fourty-eight states in the American Union in 1913, meaning that affirmative action of thirty-six was necessary for ratification. In February 1913, Secretary of State Philander Knox proclaimed that thirty-eight had ratified the Amendment.
In 1984 Bill Benson began a research project, never before performed, to investigate the process of ratification of the 16th Amendment. After traveling to the capitols of the New England states and reviewing the journals of the state legislative bodies, he saw that many states had not ratified. He continued his research at the National Archives in Washington, D.C.; it was here that Bill found his Golden Key (https://www.thelawthatneverwas.com/key.aspx).
This damning piece of evidence is a sixteen-page memorandum from the Solicitor of the Department of State, among whose duties is the provision of legal opinions for the Secretary of State. In this memorandum, the Solicitor lists the many errors he found in the ratification process.
These four states are among the thirty-eight from which Philander Knox claimed ratification:


California: The legislature never recorded any vote on any proposal to adopt the amendment proposed by Congress.
Kentucky: The Senate voted on the resolution, but rejected it by a vote of nine in favor and twenty-two opposed.
Minnesota: The State sent nothing to the Secretary of State in Washington.
Oklahoma: The Senate amended the language of the 16th Amendment to have a precisely opposite meaning.



https://www.thelawthatneverwas.com/Images/Thumbnails/Bill.jpgBill would like to thank all those who've contributed or shown support in the fight against fraudulent taxation. Click here (https://www.thelawthatneverwas.com/Donate.aspx) to help.
When his project was finished at the end of 1984, Bill had visited the capitol of every state from 1913 and knew that not a single one had actually and legally ratified the proposal to amend the U.S. Constitution. Thirty-three states engaged in the unauthorized activity of altering the language of an amendment proposed by Congress, a power that the states do not possess.
Since thirty-six states were needed for ratification, the failure of thirteen to ratify was fatal to the Amendment. This occurs within the major (first three) defects tabulated in Defects in Ratification of the 16th Amendment (https://www.thelawthatneverwas.com/defects.aspx). Even if we were to ignore defects of spelling, capitalization and punctuation, we would still have only two states which successfully ratified.

[Spurtacular]

No, I was talking about your whiffing on the "facts."

:cry Muh enemies list :cry

:lol Always chirping

[Spurtacular]

Dr. Ron Paul throwing haymakers.
TheGreatYacht


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LKcYNpl5xeM

[ChumpDumper]

:cry Muh enemies list :cry

:lol Always chirping:lol He's not an enemy.

Just ignorant about Thurgood Marshall.

[ChumpDumper]

https://www.thelawthatneverwas.com/:lol "research"

[ElNono]

https://www.thelawthatneverwas.com/

United States vs Benson, 941 F.2d 598, 607 (7th Cir 1991)

[Spurtacular]

:lol "research"

:cry Muh government wouldn't lie to me :cry

lol cherp

[Spurtacular]

United States vs Benson, 941 F.2d 598, 607 (7th Cir 1991)

Looks interesting enough at a glance. You'll have to use your words though.

[ElNono]

3.Petitioners advance the theory that the Internal Revenue Code is not law because the Sixteenth Amendment was not properly ratified. In support of this theory they cite a book entitled "The Law That Never Was", by Bill Benson and Martin Beckman, which they say was published in 1985. Petitioners must have noticed that in the intervening 30 years, income tax returns have continued to be required and filed, and income taxes have continued to be paid by taxpayers, collected by the IRS, and enforced by the courts. In fact, litigation involving Mr. Benson himself has shown his theory to be without merit.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit stated: Benson's claim to have discovered that the Sixteenth Amendment was not ratified has been rejected by this Court in Benson's own criminal appeal. United States v. Benson,941 F.2d 598, 607 (7th Cir. 1991) ("In Thomas, we specifically examined the arguments made in The Law That Never Was, and concluded that 'Benson...did not discover anything.' " (quoting United States v. Thomas, 788 F.2d 1250, 1253 ( 7th Cir. 1986)))." We have repeatedly rejected the claim that the Sixteenth Amendment was improperly ratified. One would think this repeated rejection of Benson's Sixteenth Amendment argument would put the matter to rest." Benson, 941 F.2d at 607(citation somitted).

Excerpt from another court case invoking Benson.
https://www.ustaxcourt.gov/InternetOrders/DocumentViewer.aspx?IndexSearchableOrdersID=209618&Todays=Y

[Spurtacular]

3.Petitioners advance the theory that the Internal Revenue Code is not law because the Sixteenth Amendment was not properly ratified. In support of this theory they cite a book entitled "The Law That Never Was", by Bill Benson and Martin Beckman, which they say was published in 1985. Petitioners must have noticed that in the intervening 30 years, income tax returns have continued to be required and filed, and income taxes have continued to be paid by taxpayers, collected by the IRS, and enforced by the courts. In fact, litigation involving Mr. Benson himself has shown his theory to be without merit.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit stated: Benson's claim to have discovered that the Sixteenth Amendment was not ratified has been rejected by this Court in Benson's own criminal appeal. United States v. Benson,941 F.2d 598, 607 (7th Cir. 1991) ("In Thomas, we specifically examined the arguments made in The Law That Never Was, and concluded that 'Benson...did not discover anything.' " (quoting United States v. Thomas, 788 F.2d 1250, 1253 ( 7th Cir. 1986)))." We have repeatedly rejected the claim that the Sixteenth Amendment was improperly ratified. One would think this repeated rejection of Benson's Sixteenth Amendment argument would put the matter to rest." Benson, 941 F.2d at 607(citation somitted).

Excerpt from another court case invoking Benson.
https://www.ustaxcourt.gov/InternetOrders/DocumentViewer.aspx?IndexSearchableOrdersID=209618&Todays=Y

So, a blanket denial. That points towards a cover-up.

There's a reason this didn't go to SCOTUS.

[ElNono]

Here's the United States vs Thomas decision:

https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15005018928858012497&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr

[ChumpDumper]

Looks interesting enough at a glance. You'll have to use your words though.:lmao

You just believed your guy without reading anything.

[ChumpDumper]

So, a blanket denial. That points towards a cover-up.:lmao moar conspacies

[ElNono]

So, a blanket denial. That points towards a cover-up.

There's a reason this didn't go to SCOTUS.

Not really. It's plan as a day in the Thomas decision:

1. Thomas is a tax protester, and one of his arguments is that he did not need to file tax returns because the sixteenth amendment is not part of the constitution. It was not properly ratified, Thomas insists, repeating the argument of W. Benson & M. Beckman, The Law That Never Was (1985). Benson and Beckman review the documents concerning the states' ratification of the sixteenth amendment and conclude that only four states ratified the sixteenth amendment; they insist that the official promulgation of that amendment by Secretary of State Knox in 1913 is therefore void.

Benson and Beckman did not discover anything; they rediscovered something that Secretary Knox considered in 1913. Thirty-eight states ratified the sixteenth amendment, and thirty-seven sent formal instruments of ratification to the Secretary of State. (Minnesota notified the Secretary orally, and additional states ratified later; we consider only those Secretary Knox considered.) Only four instruments repeat the language of the sixteenth amendment exactly as Congress approved it. The others contain errors of diction, capitalization, punctuation, and spelling. The text Congress transmitted to the states was: "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration." Many of the instruments neglected to capitalize "States," and some capitalized other words instead. The instrument from Illinois had "remuneration" in place of "enumeration"; the instrument from Missouri substituted "levy" for "lay"; the instrument from Washington had "income" not "incomes"; others made similar blunders.

Thomas insists that because the states did not approve exactly the same text, the amendment did not go into effect. Secretary Knox considered this argument. The Solicitor of the Department of State drew up a list of the errors in the instruments and — taking into account both the triviality of the deviations and the treatment of earlier amendments that had experienced more substantial problems — advised the Secretary that he was authorized to declare the amendment adopted. The Secretary did so.

Although Thomas urges us to take the view of several state courts that only agreement on the literal text may make a legal document effective, the Supreme Court follows the "enrolled bill rule." If a legislative document is authenticated in regular form by the appropriate officials, the court treats that document as properly adopted. Field v. Clark, 143 U.S. 649, 12 S.Ct. 495, 36 L.Ed. 294 (1892). The principle is equally applicable to constitutional amendments. See Leser v. Garnett, 258 U.S. 130, 42 S.Ct. 217, 66 L.Ed. 505 (1922), which treats as conclusive the declaration of the Secretary of State that the nineteenth amendment had been adopted. In United States v. Foster, 789 F.2d 457, 462-63 & n. 6 (7th Cir.1986), we relied on Leser, as well as on the inconsequential nature of the objections in the face of the 73-year acceptance of the effectiveness of the sixteenth amendment, to reject a claim similar to Thomas's. See also Coleman v. Miller, 307 U.S. 433, 59 S.Ct. 972, 83 L.Ed. 1385 (1939) (questions about ratification of amendments may be non justiciable). Secretary Knox declared that enough states had ratified the sixteenth amendment. The Secretary's decision is not transparently defective. We need not decide when, if ever, such a decision may be reviewed in order to know that Secretary Knox's decision is now beyond review.

---

It didn't reach the SCOTUS because it was moot, the Supreme Court itself set the "enrolled bill rule" standard.

[Will Hunting]

https://www.thelawthatneverwas.com/
:lol is this supposed to be dispositive evidence that the 16th amendment is a sham?

[Spurtacular]

others made similar blunders.

Mmmhmm.

[Spurtacular]

:lol is this supposed to be dispositive evidence that the 16th amendment is a sham?


If we subtract Kentucky and Oklahoma from the 38 approvals above, the count of valid approvals falls to 36, the exact number needed for ratification. If any more states can be shown to have had invalid approvals, the 16th amendment must be regarded as null and void.
The state constitution of Tennessee prohibited the state legislature from acting on any proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution sent by Congress until after the next election of state legislators. The intent, of course, is to give the proposed amendment a chance to become an issue in the state legislative elections so that the people can have a voice in determining the outcome. It also provides a cooling off period to reduce the tendency to approve an idea just because it happens to be the moment's trend. You've probably already guessed that the Tennessee legislature did not hold off on voting for the amendment until after the next election, and you'd be right - they didn't; hence, they acted upon it illegally before they were authorized to do so. They also violated their own state constitution by failing to read the resolution on three different days as prescribed by Article II, Section 18. These state constitutional violations make their approval of the amendment null and void. Their approval is and was invalid, and it brings the number of approving states down to 35, one less than required for ratification.
Texas and Louisiana violated provisions in their state constitutions prohibiting the legislatures from empowering the federal government with any additional taxing authority. Now the number is down to 33.
Twelve other states, besides Tennessee, violated provisions in their constitutions requiring that a bill be read on three different days before voting on it. This is not a trivial requirement. It allows for a cooling off period; it enables members who may be absent one day to be present on another; it allows for a better familiarity with, and understanding of, the measure under consideration, since some members may not always read a bill or resolution before voting on it (believe it or not!). States violating this procedure were: Mississippi, Ohio, Arkansas, Minnesota, New Mexico, West Virginia, Indiana, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Colorado, and Illinois. Now the number is reduced to 21 states legally ratifying the amendment.
When Secretary Knox transmitted the proposed amendment to the states, official certified and sealed copies were sent. Likewise, when state results were returned to Knox, it was required that the documents, including the resolution that was actually approved, be properly certified, signed, and sealed by the appropriate official(s). This is no more than any ordinary citizen has to do in filing any legal document, so that it's authenticity is assured; otherwise it is not acceptable and is meaningless. How much more important it is to authenticate a constitutional amendment! Yet a number of states did not do this, returning uncertified, unsigned, and/or unsealed copies, and did not rectify their negligence even after being reminded and warned by Knox. The most egregious offenders were Ohio, California, Arkansas, Mississippi, and Minnesota - which did not send any copy at all, so Knox could not have known what they even voted on! Since four of these states were already disqualified above, California is now subtracted from the list of valid approvals, reducing it to 20.
These last five states, along with Kentucky and Oklahoma, have particularly strong implications with regard to the fraud charge against Knox, in that he cannot be excused for not knowing they shouldn't have been counted. Why was he in such a hurry? Why did he not demand that they send proper documentation? They never did.
Further review would make the list dwindle down much more, but with the number down to 20, sixteen fewer than required, this is a suitable place to rest, without getting into the matter of several states whose constitutions limited the taxing authority of their legislatures, which could not give to the federal govern authority they did not have.
The results from the six states Knox had not heard from at the time he made his proclamation do not affect the conclusion that the amendment was not legally ratified. Of those six: two (Virginia and Pennsylvania) he never did hear from, because they ignored the proposed amendment; Florida rejected it; two others (Vermont and Massachusetts) had rejected it much earlier by recorded votes, but, strangely, submitted to the Secretary within a few days of his ratification proclamation that they had passed it (without recorded votes); West Virginia had purportedly approved it at the end of January 1913, but its notification had not yet been received (remember that West Virginia had violated its own constitution, as noted above).

https://www.givemeliberty.org/features/taxes/notratified.htm

[ChumpDumper]

If we subtract all the states that ratified the amendment, the amendment isn't ratified!

[Spurtacular]

Chirp!

[ChumpDumper]

It's safe to say your conspiracy theory has been debunked.

[Will Hunting]

https://www.givemeliberty.org/features/taxes/notratified.htm
So do you pay taxes? If you actually believed any of this bullshit then theoretically you wouldn’t pay any federal income tax :lol

[Spurtacular]

So do you pay taxes? If you actually believed any of this bullshit then theoretically you wouldn’t pay any federal income tax :lol

Not necessarily. The govt. has virtually infinite resources. I don't.

[Will Hunting]

Not necessarily. The govt. has virtually infinite resources. I don't.
:lol so you pay taxes even though you think it’s unconstitutional? That’s like staying married to a woman you think is cheating on you.

:lol getting cucked by the IRS

[Spurtacular]

:lol so you pay taxes even though you think it’s unconstitutional? That’s like staying married to a woman you think is cheating on you.

:lol getting cucked by the IRS

You know it's a sham. It's not going to stop you from complying.

[Will Hunting]

You know it's a sham. It's not going to stop you from complying.
:lol what? If I actually thought I had a valid legal argument to avoid paying taxes, I wouldn’t pay them. Neither would the billionaires who actually have resources at their disposal to fight the federal government if they wanted to.

[Spurtacular]

:lol what? If I actually thought I had a valid legal argument to avoid paying taxes, I wouldn’t pay them. Neither would the billionaires who actually have resources at their disposal to fight the federal government if they wanted to.

Valid is that the amendment wasn't properly ratified. You just know the government doesn't give two fucks and you accept that and capitulate. It is what it is.

[ElNono]

Valid is that the amendment wasn't properly ratified. You just know the government doesn't give two fucks and you accept that and capitulate. It is what it is.

You're the one claiming the 16th Amendment wasn't ratified AND paying income taxes... who's capitulating here?

[Spurtacular]

You're the one claiming the 16th Amendment wasn't ratified AND paying income taxes... who's capitulating here?

I am capitulating. I don't need to be a voiceless martyr and spend twenty years in the fed pen like others have done.

You're capitulating, too. It is what it is.

[ElNono]

I am capitulating. I don't need to be a voiceless martyr and spend twenty years in the fed pen like others have done.

You're capitulating, too. It is what it is.

I don't claim the 16th Amendment wasn't ratified. I side with the courts, who has long established it's been legally ratified. I'm merely following the law.

Law and order!

[Spurtacular]

I don't claim the 16th Amendment wasn't ratified.

Which shows how easy you'll capitulate.

[ElNono]

Which shows how easy you'll capitulate.

This is fundamentally a country of laws, and we all accept that and live by it, whether we like the laws or not. We also understand the judiciary has final word on these matters, unless Congress decides to change the laws. That's not 'capitulating', that's simply accepting reality.

Again, if you believe you're right, don't be a coward, stand up for it. You could even sue while still paying your taxes. Until a court endorses your theory, you're simply wrong.

[Spurtacular]

This is fundamentally a country of laws, and we all accept that and live by it, whether we like the laws or not. We also understand the judiciary has final word on these matters, unless Congress decides to change the laws. That's not 'capitulating', that's simply accepting reality.

Again, if you believe you're right, don't be a coward, stand up for it. You could even sue while still paying your taxes. Until a court endorses your theory, you're simply wrong.

It's fundamentally a incorporated police state. We all subjected whether we like it or not. We also understand that the autocrats at the behest of the oligarchs have the final word on these matters unless the people revolt (which they won't), that's accepting true reality.

Again, you don't believe you're right and you are a coward who laid down long ago. You know the recourse isn't there. You pretend it is. You're simply wrong.

[ElNono]

lol @ "true reality" (and it's close cousin, "alternate facts")

your frustration of not living in your imaginary world is duly noted. in the meantime, go outside and figure out what real life looks like, you know, the one you have to actually live.

that is true, the rest is in your head.

[Spurtacular]

lol @ "true reality" (and it's close cousin, "alternate facts")

your frustration of not living in your imaginary world is duly noted. in the meantime, go outside and figure out what real life looks like, you know, the one you have to actually live.

that is true, the rest is in your head.

All this lashing out because you can't cover for impropriety. It's what you do.

[ElNono]

All this lashing out because you can't cover for impropriety. It's what you do.

nobody is lashing out, just telling it like it is.

[ElNono]

And on the topic at hand, fuck this bitch... first diagnosis of cancer was in 1999... shoulda stepped down a long time ago, while Barry had two terms going... but her ego is bigger than everything.

[Will Hunting]

And on the topic at hand, fuck this bitch... first diagnosis of cancer was in 1999... shoulda stepped down a long time ago, while Barry had two terms going... but her ego is bigger than everything.
It was feminazi bullshit, she wanted the :cryfirst female President:cry to pick her replacement. She woulda stepped down in 2017 if Shillary won.

[Spurtacular]

And on the topic at hand, fuck this bitch... first diagnosis of cancer was in 1999... shoulda stepped down a long time ago, while Barry had two terms going... but her ego is bigger than everything.

But she shouldn't step down now?

[ElNono]

But she shouldn't step down now?

She clearly is all about herself...

[Spurtacular]

She clearly is all about herself...

By that you mean she isn't thinking enough about Team Blue. :lol

[Spurtacular]

It was feminazi bullshit, she wanted the :cryfirst female President:cry to pick her replacement. She woulda stepped down in 2017 if Shillary won.

You wanted the identity politics.

[Will Hunting]

By that you mean she isn't thinking enough about Team Blue. :lol
Sandra Day O’Connor stepped down way before she needed to in order to ensure it was with a Republican President in office, as did Kennedy. Imo it’s a valid criticism that Breyer and RGB are a lot more selfish than their conservative counterparts.

[ElNono]

By that you mean she isn't thinking enough about Team Blue. :lol

If she didn't care, she would've retired in 1999, or any time later... that's what I mean. She had a number of cancer diagnosis. First in 1999, then in 2009... she clearly doesn't care.

[Spurminator]

It's fair to criticize her past decisions but she's a fucking hero for sticking it out right now. It's unfortunate she can't just retire and live her last few months in relaxation like anyone else in her state should be able to do. She has to keep working to keep an immoral Senate majority from eroding civil rights for the next 30+ years.

[Spurtacular]

Sandra Day O’Connor stepped down way before she needed to in order to ensure it was with a Republican President in office, as did Kennedy. Imo it’s a valid criticism that Breyer and RGB are a lot more selfish than their conservative counterparts.

Chumpettes want their cake and to eat it too. Ya'll complained that Kavanaugh was too frank in calling out Team Blue in their efforts to sabotage his nomination. But you think these judges need to abide the team construct.

But if you throw the team stuff out of it, I go back to what you said earlier. People her age lack the vitality to do this job and are selfish in the first place. The fact that we have all these seventy plus year-olds in government is troubling. Term limits all way. These fossils need to lay in the ground. They had their day. Go enjoy the sunset like they're supposed to.

[baseline bum]

It was feminazi bullshit, she wanted the :cryfirst female President:cry to pick her replacement. She woulda stepped down in 2017 if Shillary won.

You serious? Fuck, should have stepped down 11 years ago.

[Trainwreck2100]

It's fair to criticize her past decisions but she's a fucking hero for sticking it out right now. It's unfortunate she can't just retire and live her last few months in relaxation like anyone else in her state should be able to do. She has to keep working to keep an immoral Senate majority from eroding civil rights for the next 30+ years.

They're already going to do that, right now all we got is to hope one of Thomas or Allito, pulls a Scalia. Instead of both

[Spurtacular]

If she didn't care, she would've retired in 1999, or any time later... that's what I mean. She had a number of cancer diagnosis. First in 1999, then in 2009... she clearly doesn't care.

See, you think she's supposed to care about your feelings / politics. And then later on you're going to pretend that these judges are impartial as you cite cases after case that supports your politics. :lol The cognitive dissonance.

I agree that she appears to give zero fucks in any event. The court trying cases with eight judges because she thinks the world is supposed to revolve on her axis is very selfish. Hyper partisan fucks like Sadbert obviously don't agree. He's happy counting his beans.

[ElNono]

See, you think she's supposed to care about your feelings / politics. And then later on you're going to pretend that these judges are impartial as you cite cases after case that supports your politics. :lol The cognitive dissonance.

I agree that she appears to give zero fucks in any event. The court trying cases with eight judges because she thinks the world is supposed to revolve on her axis is very selfish. Hyper partisan fucks like Sadbert obviously don't agree. He's happy counting his beans.

I don't think anybody should care about my feelings, at all. As I said earlier, I would much a prefer mandatory age cap, where they're forced to retire, and whatever administration gets the spot, gets it.

However, I keep hearing from the resident Joetards that we really, really need to vote for him because muh SCOTUS pick, but this is only largely a problem because this selfish bitch didn't do what she was supposed to do back in the day.

So now they're praying she'll make it to January next year, and it didn't need to be this way.

[baseline bum]

See, you think she's supposed to care about your feelings / politics. And then later on you're going to pretend that these judges are impartial as you cite cases after case that supports your politics. :lol The cognitive dissonance.

I agree that she appears to give zero fucks in any event. The court trying cases with eight judges because she thinks the world is supposed to revolve on her axis is very selfish. Hyper partisan fucks like Sadbert obviously don't agree. He's happy counting his beans.

Oh no the world ends with eight judges? You didn't have a problem with it when McConnell was making that call.

[Spurtacular]

I don't think anybody should care about my feelings, at all. As I said earlier, I would much a prefer mandatory age cap, where they're forced to retire, and whatever administration gets the spot, gets it.

However, I keep hearing from the resident Joetards that we really, really need to vote for him because muh SCOTUS pick, but this is only largely a problem because this selfish bitch didn't do what she was supposed to do back in the day.

So now they're praying she'll make it to January next year, and it didn't need to be this way.

Agism is a bad idea. If for some reason, nominating a 70-year-old is worthwhile, then okay. But term limits will largely weed out these skeletons masquerading as judges though; it's an all too prevalent reality at this point.

I just don't sympathize that your ability to legislate from the court could be hindered. But like I say, RGB is a selfish bitch nonetheless.

[Spurtacular]

Oh no the world ends with eight judges? You didn't have a problem with it when McConnell was making that call.

While we're adding term limits, change the law to not allow for it. But I can't say I gave two shits that he blocked Obama from putting a third hack on the court. Frankly, it's one of the few good things he ever did.

[baseline bum]

While we're adding term limits, change the law to not allow for it. But I can't say I gave two shits that he blocked Obama from putting a third hack on the court. Frankly, it's one of the few good things he ever did.

Of course you don't give two shits since it gave Trump the chance to put a hack on the court.

[Spurtacular]

Of course you don't give two shits since it gave Trump the chance to put a hack on the court.

Hacks compared to what Obama put? No.

But the glaring truth is that Democrats just didn't give a fuck because they were convinced 2016 was in the bag anyways.

[baseline bum]

Hacks compared to what Obama put? No.

But the glaring truth is that Democrats just didn't give a fuck because they were convinced 2016 was in the bag anyways.

Democrats did give a fuck they got their seat stolen. Hopefully if they win this fall they'll start packing the court since McConnell has shown there is nothing sacred about the number 9.

[ElNono]

Agism is a bad idea. If for some reason, nominating a 70-year-old is worthwhile, then okay. But term limits will largely weed out these skeletons masquerading as judges though; it's an all too prevalent reality at this point.

I just don't sympathize that your ability to legislate from the court could be hindered. But like I say, RGB is a selfish bitch nonetheless.

I don't like term limits when it comes to the SCOTUS. It's a difficult job as it is, and experience is a key factor, IMO. I'm more inclined for term limits in Congress.

[Spurtacular]

Democrats did give a fuck they got their seat stolen. Hopefully if they win this fall they'll start packing the court since McConnell has shown there is nothing sacred about the number 9.

:lol You're such a crybaby.

[Spurtacular]

I don't like term limits when it comes to the SCOTUS. It's a difficult job as it is, and experience is a key factor, IMO. I'm more inclined for term limits in Congress.

Nah. We don't need to be stuck with any of these self-important blowhards for decades upon decades.

[boutons_deux]

I don't like term limits when it comes to the SCOTUS. It's a difficult job as it is, and experience is a key factor, IMO. I'm more inclined for term limits in Congress.

the experience comes BEFORE joining SCOTUS, not during.

10 years term limit for SCOTUS

[baseline bum]

:lol You're such a crybaby.

ok snowflake

[Spurtacular]

ok snowflake

Crying that the Dems didn't give a sh** cos of a "stolen" seat, bruh.

https://wompampsupport.azureedge.net/fetchimage?siteId=7575&v=2&jpgQuality=100&width=700&url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.kym-cdn.com%2Fentries%2Ficons%2Ffacebook%2F000%2F022%2 F524%2Ftumblr_o16n2kBlpX1ta3qyvo1_1280.jpg

[ElNono]

the experience comes BEFORE joining SCOTUS, not during.

10 years term limit for SCOTUS

It comes before and after. A lower court judge has room to make a mistake, since they're not the last line. The SCOTUS judges have no such luxury.

Plus we've seen this with a number of SCOTUS judges, who, over time, became much more independent, not to mention the hierarchy that exists with the chief justice, who is generally the more experienced one.

If every justice is going to be Clearance Thomas or Sotomayor, then we're all worse for it.