Here’s a question: If the “legal precedent” was all that strong as cited in all these cases, why is there a need to cite all the challenges and not just the legal precedent itself?? The only citation should be directly to Wong Kim Ark and not to appeals court dicta or ballot-hearing dicta.
“If the “legal precedent” was all that strong as cited in all these cases, why is there a need to cite all the challenges and not just the legal precedent itself??”
__
That’s a question I think you have to address to Messrs. Begley and Tepper, or at least to some other experienced litigator.
My guess? They would like to emphasize the point that the judicial community overwhelmingly reads WKA to say what they think it says.
Of course, your side is equally free to show how other judges view the matter differently. The more judicial support Team Obama can show, compared to what you have, seems to me to strengthen their argument enormously.
But that’s just my opinion. Feel free to ask them.