This is my last response to you. You are either a troll, or so absolutely idiotic that I'd be surprised that you are capable of using a computer.
What you wrote is objectively wrong. On any given supreme court case or decision, there is the opinion of the court (which is written by a member of the majority voting block). Then, there are potentially concurring opinions, written by members of the winning voting block that will shed light on some other issue, but doesn't represent the court, unless a majority also sign it. Then there are dissenting opinions. Sometimes those written opinions are signed on to by all the justices who disagree with the ruling. But each justice has the chance to write one, or sign on to a colleagues in opinion, or not further discuss their position by just moving on. Frequently you'll have multiple dissenting opinions signed on to by various justices. If a justice doesn't sign on to a dissenting opinion, it means they are not publicly supporting the position espoused in the dissenting opinion. Even whilr sharing the vote. On any given case there are a number of reasons why a justice would vote a particular way. The dissenting opinions exist to tell us why.
This is not "a small detail" as you tried to note. This is a huge deal on any given case and is frequently talked about in the media and by legal scholars. Some dissents are famously cited in other cases or referred to by lawyers often. The dissenting opinions that carry weight are the ones signed by more folks. A case decided 5-4 with a dissenting opinion signed by all 4 of the losing justices, for instance, is a big deal. A case decided 5-4 with a dissenting opinion written by one justice and not signed on to by any others, is a dissenting opinion that doesn't matter as much.
