Do you understand how ridiculous it sounds when you say “a gender dysphoria concept that has been around for hundreds of years is fake because colleges need to reprint books”?
This is the very essence of a disingenuous argument. A book does not dictate the absolute meaning of a concept, and likewise the motivation of printing a book does not invalidate the information therein.
Well if the court didn’t engage in clearly partisan politics, maybe the liberal justices wouldn’t have anything to criticize.
Does he realize how bad it looks when he voices that his problem is criticism and not like, I don’t know, taking money from political interests? Or refusing to recuse in cases where there’s a relative directly involved?