We're not kids to be arguing over silly examples like this.

No, but losing 60-something court cases, many of those with judges appointed by the very same administration fighting this, with many of the attorneys in questions getting their credentials questioned to the border of disbarrment... yeah, I have nothing else to add.

>losing 60-something court cases

This is misinformation. They didn't lose 60-something cases, the vast majority of cases were rejected for lack of standing, i.e. the courts refused to even hear them.

Would you prefer "not winning 60+ lawsuits" as a more correct wording?

IMHO being thrown out for lack of standing is either pretty much "loosing" (bringing an argument for why you have standing and the court rejecting it, in cases where it isn't clear that's certainly a valid thing to do) or worse (not even managing to file a proper lawsuit - although not caring for that makes it of course easier to spam an impressive-sounding number). And it's not the like the cases where they weren't rejected for lack of standing generally went much better?