Although Supreme Court cases result in new or modified laws—and are final—you'll sometimes see sections where the justices try to convince the reader that their reasoning is sound…especially in the dissent sections.

They often do this by asking rhetorical questions to help them build up to a main point. One example can be seen in White's dissent where he explains that it should be allowed to ask basic questions to a suspect without a warning:

But if the defendant may not answer without a warning a question such as 'Where were you last night?' without having his answer be a compelled one, how can the Court ever accept his negative answer to the question of whether he wants to consult his retained counsel or counsel whom the court will appoint? (WhiteDissent.III.5)

Another example comes from White (again), where he argues that giving criminals fair warning will result in more bad guys going free:

And what about the accused who has confessed or would confess in response to simple, noncoercive questioning and whose guilt could not otherwise be proved? Is it so clear that release is the best thing for him in every case? Has it so unquestionably been resolved that, in each and every case, it would be better for him not to confess, and to return to his environment with no attempt whatsoever to help him? I think not. (WhiteDissent.2.IV.11)

These rhetorical questions work well for the Dissent sections, because remember—these justices are trying to argue that the decision of the Court is incorrect or harmful. By questioning the ruling and bringing up counterexamples, they're making their points about what could go wrong by implementing these new rules.