Does it matter if Judge Taylor's decision was inartful?

Glenn Greenwald mounts a new and fairly convincing defense of Judge Taylor's opinion in which he argues that a) the opinion is not nearly as bad as many have claimed, and b) that it really makes no difference if the opinion is poorly written so long as its conclusions are correct. If the government failed to plead its case fully in its pleadings, Greenwald argues that was the government's fault, not the judge's. The following paragraph summarizes one of his main points:

The issue on this appeal -- on every appeal -- is: "Are the court's conclusions correct?," not "do we agree with what the judge said and did in reaching that conclusion?" In a garden-variety lawsuit, a District Court opinion might have a significant impact on persuading appellate judges, but with issues of this magnitude, the appellate court will review the issues from scratch, no matter the quality of the lower court opinion. And if the Sixth Circuit concludes that the NSA program is unconstitutional and in violation of FISA, Judge Taylor's decision will be affirmed regardless of how pretty or complete its analysis is.

While this may be true, he doesn't seem to address – at least not directly – Publius' main point. As I understand it, Publius believes that the case was only in its preliminary pre-trial stages, where the questions at issue were not the merits of the case itself but whether the case would come to trial at all. The government was arguing first that the plaintiffs had no standing and second that the state secrets privelege should be invoked. If it had won on either of these issues, no trial would have taken place, in which case the government would not have had to argue the merits of case itself. Only after these pre-trial issues were resolved against it would the government be obliged to present its case in chief on the merits.

Rather than rule on those pre-trial issues alone, Publius argues, the judge jumped the gun and ruled not only on the pre-trial issues but on the merits of the case as well. By doing so, Publius feels the government was deprived of the opportunity to present whatever facts and arguments might have supported its position.

If Publius is correct, that would seem to me to be a fatal flaw. True, the government probably has few if any facts and arguments to support its position, but it certainly should have had an opportunity to air them before a judgment was handed down, and I would think the Sixth Circuit would reverse on that basis alone.

I wish Greenwald or someone more knowledgeable than I would address this issue head on.