First, Judge Batts specifically addresses and distinguishes the Gone with the Wind case. You may not agree with that distinction, but at least address it on its merits.

Second, the Judge cites many other cases besides Campbell, including Castle Rock, the Gone With the Wind case, the Judge Patterson case, the Dr. Seuss case, and others to a lesser extent. But anyway, Campbell is the relevant Supreme Court precedent, so obviously its the most important at the general level.

Third, many courts have consistently held that a work can infringe without literally copying if it is “substantially similar” to the underlying work, for which there are other, subsidiary tests. The judge notes that she found this on the record, before this opinion. Have you read the transcript of that hearing? Have you read the two books side by side like the judge presumably did? Can you say for certain they are not substantially similar? Nope. Again you might be right, but you if you are, you are merely right by accident, because you clearly have no idea what the law of copyright is. This is NOT the same as the idea/expression dichotomy. One can copy someone else’s expression without copying their words word for word. This is not merely a matter of fact, it is a matter of law.

Fourth, the judge never says that only parody is protected as fair use, and in fact, goes through an entire analysis of other “transformative” content in the sequel, and in fact did find some. The judge found, however, that this transformative content was not sufficient given that the other factors weighed against fair use IN THIS CASE. You don’t mention this analysis at all.

In summary, you are either blatantly dishonest, or have not read the judge’s opinion at all, or both. Its one thing to criticize this opinion on policy grounds (I’m not sure I agree with it either) but your “legal” criticism is way way WAY off base.