The best bit of this Appellate Law & Practice post says:
"The plaintiffs also had a due process claim, which was dismissed, and their 'appellate brief thunders that this ruling should be reversed.' But, it seems they don’t actually explain what their argument is. And, the court slams the lawyers by saying, 'Their appellate brief thunders that this ruling should be reversed — but that remonstrance, twice repeated, is unaccompanied by any vestige of developed argumentation. Gauzy generalizations are manifestly insufficient to preserve an issue for appellate review.' (Of course, judges often indulge in generalizations.)"
The post is about an opinion from the First Circuit, in Torres-Arroyo v. Rullan, worth reading in and of itself, and not only for its use of the term, "sockdolager."