The Texas Supreme Court decision that purports to “solve” the matter is terribly written.

When we first read the opinion, written by Justice Harriet O'Neill, we thought perhaps we simply did not know enough about the law, that those statements that seemed clearly contradictory to us really were not.

We've come to believe that is not the case, that Ms. O'Neill's writing is so convoluted it is nearly impossible to make sense of it, no matter what you know. Perhaps Ms. O'Neill herself understands it, but we aren't even sure of that.

The average person may not read many court decisions but the fact is that particularly those rendered by the higher courts are usually very readable and, while you may not grasp the logic of the law, at the very least even a layman can distinguish what is being said.

It seems to us in the O'Neill decision, some care was taken by the justice to obscure exactly what she was saying. We don't think contradictions in the opinion were accidental.

Having said all of that, we still would hope, as we have said before, that the high court turns down Marshall's request for a rehearing. We hope it is done before another penny has to be spent.