Thanks for those links. Reading the order messes with me as legalize isn't a language I'm even semi-fluent in.
The order states that scrotus upheld the dc ruling correct and canned orangeshitface's appeal? I seem to remember he had a chance to come back at them but didn't take the shot? I'll have to go back a few days and see what the present situation is. You may have posted something on that very recently as well.
And from thomas' prior tricks, he has weighed in on cases without assigning his name on any of the opinions before, but was there the whole time.
He has influenced possibly many cases from the wings. I think I posted an article by a reporter who watched thomas and was disgusted with him on this board. I'll check around.
J U D G M E N T
This cause came on to be heard on the record on appeal from the United States District
Court for the District of Columbia and was argued by counsel. On consideration thereof, it is
ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the order of the District Court appealed from in this
cause be affirmed, in accordance with the opinion of the court filed herein this date.
The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate through February 12, 2024. If,
within that period, Appellant notifies the Clerk in writing that he has filed an application with the
Supreme Court for a stay of the mandate pending the filing of a petition for a writ of certiorari, the
Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate pending the Supreme Court’s final
disposition of the application. The filing of a petition for rehearing or rehearing en banc will not
result in any withholding of the mandate, although the grant of rehearing or rehearing en banc
would result in a recall of the mandate if the mandate has already issued. See D.C. Ci
AI
Market Data 
Markets 
