I didn’t see a thread on this yet. Maybe this isn’t the right forum, but let’s start here.
If he has half enough brains to be where he is today, he’ll know that a Supreme Court justice isn’t supposed to take “positions” on controversial topics, but rather to make rulings based on the details of cases that come before the court and the applicable law.
It’s a bit surprising to encounter evidence that the NY Times may not understand this.
I refer my colleagues to this pre-existing thread. Just found it.
Mods can lock this one. I didn’t look very thoroughly before I started it.