So, Scientific American’ s Editorial Board doesn’t exactliy hold a shining view of the US Supreme Court, or at least of the conservative members of that court, as made amply clear by Sci-Am’s opinion piece (October 2024). Given the Board’s wokishness, one would hardly expect it to feel otherwise on the several cases touched on in the article. All the same, the Board is right in quoting John Adams in his view that “facts are stubborn things.” Indeed, they burst out of the fuzz, as they do when the board proclaims that abortion has saved countless lives, when in reality the adjective “countless” can and should, for sure, be applied to the aborted lives. The conservative members of the Court may have prejudices, granted; but are the liberal members of the court any less prejudiced? Would someone like Justice Jackson, a person for whom males and females are only two of an x number of genders, be a more reliable adjudicator of facts? And, incidentally, if nitrous oxide makes you laugh, nitric (nitrogen) oxide gives you an erection, which sort of suggests that Justice Gorsuch may have been pokingly tongue-in-cheek when he made his assertion.
