>Pretty much as I thought. My post was partly tongue-in-cheek:
>As such a verdict is the law (at least until a broad enough basis is found to rewrite the constitution/other laws this ruling is based on) how come this airhead can call it "opinion" to be viewed at the administrations pleasure ? A review might be necessary to make sure there the ruling is followed or not too many practices are stopped, some of which may be not touched by the verdict.

The word "opinion" has a specific meaning in law. It's what we call the document a judge writes to back up the decision. So in a case like this, we have concurring opinions (those from the majority side) and dissenting opinions (those from the minority). You read the opinions to understand the reasoning behind the ruling.

Tamar