Disturbing revelation about the Supreme Court

[Schmitz in 1972]

Atlasians! My research shows that until November 15, 2005 you were living under a LIE!

After doing a lot of research on the history of the Supreme Court, I have discovered that the first 5 (actually 4 since Kemperor was nominated twice) justices never took the oath of office, something that was REQUIRED by the Constitution for the job! What's more, there does not even exist any record that the first 3 justices were even confirmed by the senate! Another Constitutional requirement!

Therefore, all Supreme Court decisions prior to 10-27-04 (when two justices who had taken the oath joined the court) should be rejected and all decisions beyond then when Kemperor was the decisive vote should be rejected!

Research-

Migrendel-
Nominated: 4-12-04
Confirmed: NO RECORD!
Took Oath: NO RECORD!
Retired: 8-4-04

Kemperor-
Nom: 4-21-04
Con: NO RECORD!
TO: NO RECORD!
Ret: NO RECORD!

MAS-
Nom: 4-21-04
Con: NO RECORD!
TO: NO RECORD!
Ret: 10-26-04

Kemperor-
Nom: 8-7-04
Con: 8-7-04 (7-1)
TO: NO RECORD!
Ret: 11-15-05

Nym-
Nom: 8-7-04
Con: 8-8-04 (7-3)
TO: NO RECORD!
Ret: 10-25-04

King-
Nom: 10-25-04
Con: 10-26-04 (6-1)
TO: 10-27-04
Ret: 11-24-04

Demrepdan-
Nom: 10-25-04
Con: 10-26-04 (6-1)
TO: 10-27-04
Ret: 2-4-05

Liberty-
Nom: 11-26-04
Con: 11-29-04 (10-0)
TO: 11-29-04
Ret: 2-7-05

Dibble-
Nom: 2-5-05
Con: 2-10-05 (7-0)
TO: 2-10-05
Ret: 4-30-05

Texasgurl-
Nom: 2-9-05
Con: 2-10-05 (9-0)
TO: 2-10-05
Ret: 3-17-05

Ernest-
Nom: 3-17-05
Con: 3-19-05 (10-0)
TO: 3-19-05
Ret: Not yet

JFK-
Nom: 5-1-05
Con: 5-2-05 (8-0)
TO: 5-2-05
Ret: 8-19-05

Bell-
Nom: 8-20-05
Con: 8-23-05 (8-0-1)
TO: 8-24-05
Ret: Not yet

Note: the confirmation date is the date the clinching vote was cast, often voting began and/or extended on after that date

[CheeseWhiz]

Is there anything we can do to fix this?.

[Emsworth]

I do not believe that the confirmations of the previous justices can be revisited. When there is no record of a particular event, the law in some cases still presumes that the event took place if no objection is raised over a long period of time. (This principle is called "prescription," and is like a statute of limitations.)

[Joe Republic]

This doesn't really matter all that much.  AFAIK, the original Court were all appointed before the first Constitution took effect, or at least everybody realized that swearing in was a legal obligation.  Nothing to see here.

[Peter]

None of the Nym appointees were ever confirmed, and indeed took their seats before a Constitution theoretically actually existed. The Senate was barely constituted at the time and was so dreadfully inefficient/falling apart that hearings were impossible.

I didn't know that Nym and KEmperor didn't swear-in, and I would have thought they did, but I can't be sure.

[KEmperor]

Well, my memories concerning the situation when the 1st court was sworn in is a bit fuzzy, I think I swore myself in, but I can't say that with certainty.  The thread where this would have happened is probably either buried or was lost in the September 2004 disaster.  But I most certainly WAS confirmed as Chief Justice by the 3rd or so Senate and I am about 90% sure that I did swear in to that position.  Anyone who was paying attention at the time of the first nominations is quite aware of the state of the first Senate, and exactly why a confirmation was pretty much impossible.

Anyway your argument, even if it were true, only applies to maybe the first two decisions of the court.  Besides, as Peter Bell pointed out, who exactly was supposed to swear in myself, Nym, and the other first office holders when we didnt even have a functioning constitution at the time?  As the Constitution was not even in effect at the time, I wouldn't say it was a requirement.

I'm sure that if you tried to get all my decisions overturned, the current Court would not agree with your position.

[JohnFKennedy]

I hereby challenge any court decision I can just to annoy people. Forget it, I am lazy.