The more ammo the better. Lawyers call it pleading in the alternative, so lower courts may have the same interpretation of a laws ramifications but there could be some material differences that strengthen the overall argument. Obviously the opposite is also true, strengths/weaknesses can be used for or against a point of view. Since we who beleive in original intent and limited scope and a belief in the Founder's view are grounded in principles we know we are at a fundamental disadvantage with our opponents who share a distaste for the former and will pull stuff out of their butts if it gives them the result they are looking for, but I think everything in a swing court like this, getting that 5th vote (Kennedy) is key...despite his failings I think Kennedy can still be persuaded by strong constitutionally grounded reasoning so the more support we can amass to convince him the better the result will be for us. Just my 2 bits...
