It seems to me that the law and precedent are used by courts much like the Bible is by preachers. You can justify almost anything you want.

I read the whole paper (sans footnotes) and it makes a lot of sense. Had I not also read the legal memo on extra-judicial assassinations, I'd be a lot more confident that an average person could predict court decisions based on the current body of law and precedent. But I think any decision can be reached, at least in practical effect, considering the power to dismiss cases and exclude evidence.