I am not sure if the author is suggesting that the TMT opponents are correct in their opposition to the project, or just that their technique is one that can be used to great effect. To the author: I would like to know if you think that "filibustering" is appropriate even if one party in a hearing has a weak case, and is just seeing to wear down the other side? You seem to say that it is ok if this tactic is employed by "average people" as you call them, but not if it is done by corporations or the wealthy. I would argue that this tactic has no place in court if it is used because the case is weak, regardless of wealth, class, education, etc. of the litigant.

If the TMT opponents had a strong case against the telescope, they could make it without resorting to such delay tactics. Asking irrelevant questions over and over, returning to lack of jurisdiction because of claims that Hawaii isn't a state, etc. just undermine any legitimate grievances.