Don't like the Supreme Court ruling? Pressure Congress to do their jobs well and not write ambiguous laws. Problem solved.
Whether or not something is "clearly nonsense" depends on your intuitions about the way nature works. As Feynman is quick to point out, quantum mechanics doesn't respect our intuitions. Until you experience/observe/measure the cat in the box, it's state is future to you and doesn't exist until then (cf. Mermin's, "Is the moon there when nobody looks? Reality and the quantum theory").
There's nothing wrong with Copenhagen. Don't confuse ontology (what the cat is) with epistemology (what we can say about the cat). The cat is alive or dead. But until we know that by observation, we can only say that the cat is dead with some probability and alive with some probability. And that's all we can say about the future - because the future does not physically exist.
Where's the line between claiming false data is true and fuzzing to test the robustness of a system?
A good supervisor can step on your toes without messing up your shine.