What always strikes me when reading Court opinions is, first, that there are well reasoned, logical arguments that support both sides; and second, that in almost every case where I've seen a marked difference in the quality of the arguments (this case is not one of them, btw--both sides' arguments seem to me to be well reasoned and logical, it basically comes down to a judgment call about interpretation and what Congress intended), the argument I've found to be stronger has been the dissenting one. In other words, it seems to me that, when push comes to shove, the Justices aren't as good at arguing for what the Court actually did, as they are at arguing for why the Court should have done something else.
I've noticed that as well. I think it is because whoever is writing the majority opinion has to temper the opinion to make it agreeable to a majority of the justices. Authors of minority opinions have no such restriction and can swing with full force.
That's a good point; in fact, it's even stronger in a way, because the majority opinion is the "official" one that becomes effectively law, so it not only has to be agreeable to a majority of the justices, it has to be agreeable enough to become part of the law of the land indefinitely.
