Maybe, but it doesn't come across as useful research when it's filled with unnecessary asides:
"Still, the opinion doesn’t run and hide like a sissy from tough issues."
"Consider that Justice Gray was appointed by Chester Arthur, a man born of an alien father. "
"Unfortunately, in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, we have the second worst piece of stinky refuse the Court has ever passed wind upon."
"But first, let me stoke your paranoia."
Stuff like this waters down the point and its generally sloppy. Are lawyers supposed to be presenting this as part of their analysis?? Courts don't want to wade through a bunch of excessive verbiage any more than the average person. If we're going to attack WKA as the second worst SCOTUS decision, then you're asking a court to go way over its head.
It's great that Leo found a problem with the Binney citation. There are plenty of other problems in the WKA decision too, such as citations to dissent in cases that don't support Gray's conclusion, etc. Packaging and framing those problems will work if it can be done in a way that doesn't require a court to think it needs to overturn a landmark SCOTUS decision. How are these points of law specifically relevant to Obama??
Good grief. I would imagine that Leo can say what ever the heck he wants to on his blog. What better place to express ones OWN opinions and take on things? Leo has every right to.
The research stands on its own, and that’s the hallmark of good research.
He doesn’t appear to be writing a brief here, he is sharing a discovery. He has invested a lot of personal time into this, and simply offers it up for free to everyone. Cut the man some slack.