The supreme court rulings are always handed down as 'opinions.' They are opinions because they are interpreting law and giving their opinion on it.

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/about/institution.pdf

The earliest sessions of the Court were devoted to organizational proceedings. The first cases reached the Supreme Court during its second year, and the Justices handed down their first opinion in 1792.

A record of latest opinons:

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/opinions.html


>Hi Mike
>
>>>>http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=080612163731.sn58q011&show_article=1
>>>Excerpt:
>>>White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said the administration was "reviewing the opinion" but declined immediate comment.
>>>
>>>My interpretation of the role the supreme court plays is that sets the boundries of interpreting US law (quick wiki check does not change this). Is the administration allowed to classify such rulings as "opinion" or are they bound by them ?
>>>
>>>wondring aloud...
>>>
>>
>>The Supreme Court's rulings are binding. One of the core tenets of our government is "checks and balances" between the three branches -- executive, legislative, and judicial. Each branch has certain powers over the others, and is also in ways constrained by the others. Matters of law are ultimately the domain of the judicial branch, and the Supreme Court sits at the top of the pyramid. The 9 justices are nominated by the President and approved by Congress. Once seated their word is, literally, law. The administration can drag its feet but ultimately they must abide by the court's rulings.
>
>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.
>
>But calling it an "opinion" implies from my POV that there might be ways to interpret the base laws against the verdict - a tendency we see here nearly always as soon as any ruling is made lessening the tax burden: this ruling is classified as only binding to the case heard and not to be used in other cases, hopefully later forgotten and taxes kept high.
>
>Or is my interpretation of "officialese" wrong ? If it is not, why is she still a spokeswoman - as she did not ask for a correction, the statement probably was made ?
>
>regards
>
>thomas