To: Red Badger
Notice how the article does not mention that the opinion was a unanimous, 9-0, decision.
14 posted on
03/04/2024 7:48:40 AM PST by
CWW
(Pray for God's Protection!)
To: CWW
Yes- they said it was “unanimous” which most dumb Americans will NOT know means all 9 justices concur and assented to the decision.
Words like unanimous are too big for the dummies in the dem mob world.
19 posted on
03/04/2024 7:54:21 AM PST by
John S Mosby
(Sic Semper Tyrannis)
To: CWW
The court was unanimous in reversing the unprecedented decision out of Colorado...
It's there, though the 9-0 vote tally is not typed.
64 posted on
03/04/2024 8:23:30 AM PST by
citizen
(Put all LBQTwhatever programming on a new subscription service: PERV-TThose look good)
To: CWW
It states that it was a Per Curium decision, so it is an opinion of the entire court, without attribution to a single Justice.
To: CWW
Notice how the article does not mention that the opinion was a unanimous, 9-0, decision. From the article: "The court was unanimous in reversing the unprecedented decision"
To: CWW
I didn’t expect that it would be unanimous. There’s sufficient stupidity on the Court that I expected at least some nonconcurrence.
97 posted on
03/04/2024 9:04:38 AM PST by
Jamestown1630
("A Republic, if you can keep it.")
To: CWW
the first line in the article sez:
“The unanimous decision will have major implications for the presidential race.”
108 posted on
03/04/2024 10:04:48 AM PST by
catnipman
(A Vote For The Lesser Of Two Evils Still Counts As A Vote For Evil)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson