Now see, this is another one of those fallacies of false equivalency. You are equating my suggestion that the Judges of England might have been motivated by something other than the law as being the same thing as me thinking i'm "smarter than all the assembled judges of England, all of the Supreme Court, and virtually every REAL legal authority in history."
I believe the Latin for this is "non sequitur."
No, there’s no fallacy there.
There may be a bit of euphemistic speaking, but there’s no fallacy.
When I say that you are supposedly “smarter” than all of the assembled judges of England, all of the US Supreme Court, and virtually every real legal authority in history, I largely mean that you pretend that your authority (which in reality is nonexistent) somehow trumps theirs.
The fact is, virtually every legal authority in history is against your claim. Your response to that: “Oh, that’s an argument ad numerum.”
And no, it isn’t. The combined legal expertise of every real authority in history represents the combined legal expertise of every real authority in history. It represents a massive mountain of literally thousands of years of detailed legal study, knowledge and expertise. And virtually every bit of that mountain of study, knowledge and expertise says your theory is complete and total BS.
In comparison, you and your imagined legal and historical “authority” are nothing more than a june-bug on a cow pattie.
The hilarious thing is that you pretend it’s the other way around: that all the assembled legal scholars of US history are the june-bug and you are the mountain.
It’s pretty pathetic, really.