>>5108671 pb
Ooh, then we'd get 4-to-3 decisions! There's no law saying you need 9, just an odd number of Justices. I'd have to find the sauce on that, but I know I've heard it multiple times.
>>5108671 pb
Ooh, then we'd get 4-to-3 decisions! There's no law saying you need 9, just an odd number of Justices. I'd have to find the sauce on that, but I know I've heard it multiple times.