As a layman, I find the dissenting opinion strange -- for a judge. Sure it might be more pragmatic and beneficial for the victims of this particular case to take the deal. But a supreme court can't possibly cover all cases, so IMHO it must deal with the law on a higher more principled level. The argument that the bankruptcy court did ok in this case and should be allowed to do this in general is iffy because it fails to take into account various realities of life, e.g. corruption. Limitless authority is for me not a good idea, and I think the decision of the majority makes more sense.
> A bankruptcy court’s powers are not limitless and do not endow it with the power to extinguish without their consent claims held by nondebtors (here, the opioid victims) against other nondebtors (here, the Sacklers).
But again, this is my regular Joe view on the matter. And it's true that the majority of victims in this case might be in the end worse off, but the decisions of a supreme court are relevant for a long long time.