Gorsuch wrote that the law would impose costs on farmers but that it 'serve[d] moral and health interests of some (disputable) magnitude for in-state residents.' These considerations were, supposedly, 'incommensurable', and should thus be left up to the voters. 

Interestingly, he does not specify whether he means human or non-human in-state residents. Almost surely he meant the first. The magnitude of the interests involved becomes indisputably overwhelming if we factor in the latter. However, the rationale for respecting the judgement of the voters is correspondingly weakened, since the majority of those affected are disenfranchised.

Indeed. Sharing the work--and the links--was an important step to ensure it lives on in the work of other writers. I'd seen two of the papers, but not the dissertation, which I expect to eventually read and draw on. It's very sad he won't be able to turn it into a book.

Good you're doing this! One suggestion concerning your argument: when assessing the impact of nuclear weapons, it's helpful to think about their likely effects over the short and long term. 

Nuclear war probably is 'somewhat, but not extremely unlikely' over the next few decades. If we retain nuclear weapons for centuries, on the other hand, it's very likely indeed. 

Similarly, I agree that it's important to recognise that nuclear weapons have significant advantages for their possessors (as you mention in your '9 mistakes'), including increasing their security in the short term. But a state that tries to keep up nuclear deterrence forever is almost surely dooming itself to an eventual nuclear war.

I elaborate on these considerations in a recent paper here: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/1758-5899.13142. Here, as elsewhere, we need to take the long view as well as the short one.