because "this is not a case that should occupy the mind of a person who has anything consequential to do."
I kid you not; the opinion, dissenting from a 44-page majority opinion that finds a university president's actions violated the First Amendment rights of a student newspaper, is here.
It's too bad that the dissenting judge didn't take the case more seriously: I think the majority opinion may well be wrong, and certainly sets an important precedent that would benefit from serious, skeptical scrutiny. Even if the dissenter thinks the case should be unimportant ("this silly thing," he calls it), and that the plaintiffs are suffering from a "fantasy of oppression" and engaging in a "slow-motion tantrum," the case now is indeed important. It seems to me that the matter deserved his time and attention.
Thanks to How Appealing for the pointer.