Well you can't play it both ways. The whole point of the Amicus brief is to wow the court by showing them that you have 85 Great Men on your side -- it is, by its very nature, an appeal to their authority. The problem is that their authority isn't very convincing, at least not on its face. I agree that many smart people don't teach at top institutions -- but you're not going to be effective at showing support from authorities (assuming that's what you want) if you can't get people from top institutions to endorse you.
"but you're not going to be effective at showing support from authorities (assuming that's what you want) if you can't get people from top institutions to endorse you."
maybe. but maybe the people at the top reflect a certain kind of cultural sifter at work ... and that given they actually GOT to the top, they dare not mess with them who done brung them to the dance.
Credentialing institutions are a funny place, and the credentialists are a high and mighty bunch. And for the most part, Darwinian thinking suits them well. For a Credentialist, esp one whose signature would appear on diplomas, a great career risk is taken by not following orthodox rationalist dogma (given the 'thought' should dare cross their minds) ... but you probably don't agree.