This one is hilarious. You only have to read Judge Kozinski's dissent. You can figure out what the majority opinion says both by the content of the dissent as well as by the identity of the author.
Remember that Kozinski's (fairly scathing) dissent is to an opinion written by his buddy, Judge Reinhardt. Notice also that Judge Reinhardt -- who's far from a wilting flower himself -- doesn't write a single word in direct response to his friend.
I'm quite positive that I know exactly what Judge Reinhardt is thinking. And fairly sure that Kozinski knows it as well. The words are unspoken. But the message couldn't be clearer.
Maybe you have to know a bit about the respective authors, as well as their attitude towards both each other as well as the underlying topic (immigration appeals). But if you do, the dynamic expressed in these opinions is utterly hilarious.
