>Wouldn’t logic dictate that if it were a justice it would be someone that voted against it?
Not if one of them is trying to serve two masters. One (or more) might be obligated to vote in favor due to pressure, a sealed indictment, plea deal etc. yet still seek to sabotage the decision by leaking the draft.
>Q has used tor in the past but still had a ID number
>Clearly you need to lurk moar…
And before you 'discover' it, the 000000 TOR ID will change to a filled ID field if you hover over a link to a TOR post in a previous bread.
If you check an aggregator site though you will see the original posts with ID:000000.
All TOR issues have been discussed and sorted out at this point. There is no reason to suspect the validity of the Q posts with the proper tripcode on the basis of a TOR issue.
>Please give a link to a post without a I'd number, cause I can't find one. Verify don't just tell me
https://qalerts.app/?q=000000
43 post(s) found containing "000000".
>Where are the decisions from the SC?
There were two today:
Announcement of opinions for Wednesday, June 29 (complete)
By Angie Gou on June 29 at 12 a.m.
On Wednesday, June 29, we live blogged as the court released opinions in Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta and Torres v. Texas Department of Public Safety.
https://www.scotusblog.com/