Do you think Leo has a better understanding of the issue then they do?
I have some Idea of what Leo has learned of the subject. He has done extensive research on this exact aspect of it, while Roberts and Scalia would presumably know more about the more mainstream aspects of constitutional law. As I keep pointing out, this is a cul-de-sac issue of constitutional law. It relates to nothing else, and there is little reason for most lawyers to investigate it, especially as the gale force winds of ignorance throughout the legal profession erroneously claim it was decided by Wong Kim Ark.
Given that it is unlikely that Roberts or Scalia have been apprised of the evidence accumulated which demonstrates the English Law principle to be erroneous, I would have to say yeah, Leo has a better understanding of the issue than they do.
H3ll, anyone who thinks "Anchor Babies" are legitimate is obviously ignorant. Don't you think so Mr. Anchor baby?
But Leo is not a real Constitutional scholar. He is a professional poker player with no absolutely no legal experience.
Where did gain his knowledge? From actual litigation? No. From serving as a judge? No. From teaching law? No. From Google? Yes.
He is just another Google lawyer. And yet he knows more then the top conservative legal minds in America. Wow.
So how do you explain the Supreme Court rejecting all the birther suits? Surely they read the arguments and evidence in the briefs. Why didn’t the light come on and they say “boy were we wrong.”?