why do they call it an opinion page, anyway?

Rather than attempt to plumb the legal depths of the Washington State Supreme Court's ruling that upheld the WEA's opt-out "Hudson packet," and declared the law that banned it unconstitutional, The Olympian skims the surface. On the opinion page, no less.

In a news release expressing confidence that the teachers' union will prevail in the nation's high court, Charles Hasse, union president, said the union does not use nonmembers' fees on political purposes.

The [Evergreen] freedom foundation fired back a news release of its own accusing the union of misleading the media. The foundation cites a court document where the union admitted using nonmembers' fees for political purposes.

Luckily for teachers and other Washington residents, this issue is not going to be decided via competing news releases.

The nine justices are going to look at Washington's law, look at how the union has operated under that law and decide who is right and who is wrong.

It will be good to put this festering issue behind us and - finally - get clarity on the use of union fees.

No independent in-depth analysis, and no link to the ruling. Apparently, if you want clarity, you have to get it somewhere else. (Not that I really blame the editors, since the issue is messy and complex enough to make it to the nation's highest court.)

How about at the source? The legally inclined are welcome to read the majority opinion and the dissent.

How about here? In coming days, I'll be parsing the ruling in my best amateur fashion. If I can't understand it, I certainly wouldn't expect you to.

Update: Better links found, and inserted. More forthcoming.