A pinky swear is better than nothing when arguing intent, even if a bunch of justices signed it because there is no explicit enforcement
Not really, since that’s what almost precisely what they already did separately when they were sworn in.
To go through the trouble of affirming what you’ve already affirmed while insisting on no enforcement or consequences in response to a public demand for enforcement and consequences is borderline suspicious behavior…
Yup. I’ve mentioned it a couple of times, but most people seem to think or at least pretend that the Houthi terrorists came out of nowhere for no reason and suggesting otherwise gets you downvoted a lot.