So the narrative is good and anything that criticizes that narrative is "hate speech?"

Not at all.

But you can certainly argue for hidden variable theories like Bohmian mechanics, despite it being fringe.

But we know that acknowledgement improves the suicidal ideation of transgender people, so speculating (without any academic expertise) that they don't exist is less likely to get a pass.

You can even argue against climate science, even though the greenhouse effect isn't questionable.

I don't know enough about Clarence Thomas to speak on that

Are you not concerned about the reporting of bribes to the supreme Court?

Analysis: U.S. Supreme Court justices take gifts — then raise the bar for bribery prosecutions

I don't buy that any of these people are dyed in the wool Federalists

They're members of the federalist society, and have been selected for that reason.

I think they're people with incredibly successful legal careers who are at the top of their fields

It should matter what field. Barrett has almost no experience practicing law whatsoever.

And she's not the top of academia either.