@chrisgeidner you say this is "honestly very confusing" but I don't find it confusing at all, honestly.
I don't think it's properly described as a fake majority opinion. A *rejected* majority opinion, sure, but the judge's point that he was including it in the interest of time with express note that it wasn't taken up is pretty understandable and reasonable.
So I think this situation was clear, and I'm not sure why you think it's so hard to understand.