No one has an intrinsic right to the court's time if they can't muddle together a passable representation of a case and can't behave like they have the slightest idea of their professional and ethical obligations as a lawyer.
I did look at the record of decision, and I can only say that it does indeed strike me as biased. Genuinely disinterested analysts do not use sweeping invectives like “the so-called birther movement,” or remain tenaciously fixated on the side issue of the birth certificate while delivering only a glancing blow to the larger question of presidential authority.
Much of his opinion reads more like diatribe than discourse. That, as you must know, is nothing new in written legal opinions. I fear it is becoming more frequent, however, as legal education itself has become ever more politicized. I am certain you are aware that judges are humans too, and as prone to bias as anyone else. It is only the most disciplined practitioners of the judicial arts who can distance themselves somewhat from the distortions of their own lens. If you do not believe this I can reasonably infer you haven’t done much work in Family Court.
Nevertheless, I regret you feel my finding of judicial bias makes me both dishonest and lacking in objectivity. I do not see it that way. I admit I do have a point of view, as do we all, but I deny any dishonesty in arriving at it, and I have conscientiously tried to remain objective. Sometimes these “anonymous textual encounters” allow us to say things we would never say to a person to his or her face. I believe if we were having this conversation in the comfort of my living room (or yours), you might be inclined to allow my good will and sincerity to compensate somewhat for the imperfections in my objectivity.