I see, well i did not read the case but sounds like majority took the side that you can't waive criminal liability via a settlement you are not even a party too lol
which sounds right
dissent decided to cry over money poor drug addicts won't get when in reality that money was not going to the plebs anyway. does not sound like a legal argument nor is it even coached in reality.
so for who took which side... mehh, they collude on who takes what side for "optics"