|
Not really. All he does is cobble together a bunch of links, cut out snippets that he thinks sound like they apply to the situation (and say what he wants), and then foam at the mouth and shout down anyone who disagrees with him.
Because he lacks even the slightest degree of humility regarding his "legal analysis", and because he refuses to even accept the possibility that he is misinterpreting the law, every single thing he posts on this issue is suspect.
This is not a complicated point. I really shouldn't have to keep repeating and explaining it. People who are completely unqualified and untrained in a very complicated discipline should use great care when postulating about it.
<Moderator edited out stuff>
The credibility of the writer is a perfectly legitimate issue. If the writer lacks credibility, then what the writer writes is automatically questionable.
|