>>5799894 (pb)
>“did not sufficiently consider climate change”
no legal argument.
no constitutional argument.
how the hell is this not judicial malpractice?
should be grounds to impeach the commie fuck.
>>5799894 (pb)
>“did not sufficiently consider climate change”
no legal argument.
no constitutional argument.
how the hell is this not judicial malpractice?
should be grounds to impeach the commie fuck.