Maybe the author just tries to do too much. Third is the method of presentation. The author treats the decisions as evidence and proceeds to test his hypothesis by case analysis. I have no problem with this as a tool, generally speaking. The author has obviously spent much time and effort on this volume, and he has analyzed each case with much diligence and attention to detail.
Goodness knows there is more than enough citation.
But presenting such a lengthy work of scholarship involves more than technical competence or even technical virtuosity. However technically dazzling, books are unlikely to make an impact unless they persuade, and to persuade they must first be read. I would have begun this book by clearly describing the model and making clear its theoretical relevance so that the reader would not be kept in doubt. From the model I would have derived the hypotheses, and then I would have tested them with a more manageable number of cases. Instead, the author launches straightaway into an endless presentation of constitutional law cases, comparing and contrasting them and, of course, subjecting the Court s reasoning in each to thorough scrutiny.