Ok, hmm. That was just the opening statement of the case that didn't make a blind bit of sense; the actual opinion (and the dissent and the concurrance) are in much more standard prose [though still littered with references I don't get and don't have reasonable access to look up]
Note: This posting the URL and commentary is my free (unrequested) service for those interested, I find most discussions to be increasingly better off as information is increased.
