I am rapidly becoming convinced that you can tell that a Supreme Court opinion is predicated on utter horsesh*t if:

1. It is written in a manner that makes it damn near impossible to figure out the Justice's line of "reasoning" or, even worse, what the case is actually about.
2. It is written by Justice [redacted].
3. Both of the above.

(I'm apparently not supposed to whine about either specific Justices or the Court in general, but my God, when you base your entire opinion on a reading of a prior case and the author of that prior case dissents, you are doing something wrong.) (Not that I am a huge fan of said Justice-who-wrote-said-prior-case either, given that he circled around the main point for several paragraphs without ever just bothering to outright state it.)