LOL - I have to read more of his opinions, just for the humor factor. IANAL, I don’t play one on TV, and I slept at home last night - I usually just give defference to the USSC on their decicions.
Some exceptions apply - Roe v. Wade, eg.
And, I wouldn’t call it “eloquently” - more like, obliquely. He said, IIRC, you would have to be mad as a hatter to believe what my opponent does.
That is a technique I have seen on various FR threads - “You must be a child rapist to defend the constitutional rights of FLDS”, eg.
It is astounding to see it in the USSC.