I'll be brief: there is no partisan monopoly on flimsy, bad faith arguments - both sides engage in plenty. My initial take was that it was pretty weak reasoning and also hasty to leap to a conclusion totally unnecessary to the resolution of the case, and to so do in an almost laughably silly way. As the concurrence notes, calling someone "pussy" alone is not actionable under Title IX without a lot more to back up why that's discrimination because of sex, so much of the majority opinion, including the parts I quoted, weren't necessary. At all.
And in this case, the reason I mentioned the panel is because it was pretty clear that the writing judge had a preordained view about this area of the law generally, and at least one accomplice in joining it in full, and so it was no surprise to see the appointment history of the panel composition. As I say, in another case, with another opinion, and a different outcome, there'd be smoking guns pointing the other direction.
And in this case, the reason I mentioned the panel is because it was pretty clear that the writing judge had a preordained view about this area of the law generally, and at least one accomplice in joining it in full, and so it was no surprise to see the appointment history of the panel composition. As I say, in another case, with another opinion, and a different outcome, there'd be smoking guns pointing the other direction.