Bob Hurt tries to help Bill Benson

[Quixote]

It didn’t take long for the judges to see what a mistake it was to ask Dickstein anything.

Brick walls make more sense.

[Prof]

Bauer sarcastically said, “you have to pay taxes or go to jail”. Bauer stated, “the Supreme Court ruled the 16th Amendment was ratified”. Dickstein cut him off and hollered, “Name the case! What case?” Judge Bauer stuttered, “duh duh duh”. Judge Evans came to Bauer’s rescue by saying, “we will ask the questions here”.

I guess cert. denied doesn't count to Dickhe<<<stein.

Having argued a few cases in the Circuit courts, I don't really believe a word of this "report."

[Famspear]

Bauer sarcastically said, “you have to pay taxes or go to jail”. Bauer stated, “the Supreme Court ruled the 16th Amendment was ratified”. Dickstein cut him off and hollered, “Name the case! What case?” Judge Bauer stuttered, “duh duh duh”. Judge Evans came to Bauer’s rescue by saying, “we will ask the questions here”.

I guess cert. denied doesn't count to Dickhe<<<stein.

In defense of Dickstein (yikes!), certiorari denied really is not a ruling, a holding on the merits of the issues that would have been heard by the Court in a given case -- had the Court decided to hear that case. So, Dickstein is technically correct that the Supreme Court has never specifially ruled on Benson's non-ratification argument.

Big deal. On the big picture, Nikki is right. And tax protesters are fond of saying "the U.S. Supreme Court has never ruled on this" or "the U.S. Supreme Court has never ruled on that" -- ignoring the point that the U.S. Supreme Court agrees to hear very few cases. The vast majority of well-settled points of law, even points of federal law, are never decided by the U.S. Supreme Court. When it comes to most of that, the Super Nine ain't got no time! They certainly don't have the time to rule on every little frivolous argument decided in the lower courts.

[The Observer]

And I, Famspear, am the world's foremost authority on Women.

I bet the Supreme Court never ruled on that, either.

[The Observer]

Ooops, I was wrong about that:

Famspear v. National Organization of Women, 808 F.2d 311 (US Supreme Court1999)

[Famspear]

Ooops, I was wrong about that:

Famspear v. National Organization of Women, 808 F.2d 311 (US Supreme Court1999)

Yeah, in that case my argument -- that I was an authority on Women -- was ruled to be frivolous beyond belief.

[Famspear]

was your assertion a base canard, or did you duck it?

The trial court found that I was incompetent to be an Authority on Women, and ruled that I had simply gone completely quackers.