Dead wrong.
To acknowledge is to not only recognize but recognize the validity of.
The Court flat out says:
“The Court acknowledges (recognizes the validity of) Plaintiffs’ frustration with what they perceive as Congress’ inaction in this area...”
Yes, the Court correctly stated that it was a perception of the Plaintiffs, but they used the word “acknowledges” not the word “recognizes” to characterize the frustration with that perception.
Using the word “acknowledges” was a choice that the Berg District Court made which was affirmed by the Berg Appeals Court and now the Kerchner Appeals Court.
I recognize your disagreement, but I do not acknowledge your disagreement.
You’re so far out in left field now that you’ve lost all credibility on this one.
Acknowledging something does not inherently imply that something is valid. You can acknowledge that the theory of evolution exists without implying that it is a valid theory.
Take your ridiculous word games elsewhere.