Abdicating appellate responsibilities?

Here's a split decision in this 4/2 unpub, where the dissent starts off like this:

The majority’s decision ignores bedrock principles of appellate review and because of that pointlessly extends this dispute.

And ends like this:

In either event, the majority’s decision in this case is likely to keep the parties mired in the same disputes for years. No doubt after the trial judge rules a second time, the parties will appeal the same issues again. I would decide them now. Perhaps the parties can take some comfort that they’ll be able to economize by recycling in a subsequent appeal the briefs they prepared to no effect in this one.

With a final footnote, ending thusly: "Refusing to address the briefed issues isn’t prudent, but an abdication of our responsibilities as an appellate tribunal."

Also, in today's DJ, Justice Hoffstadt takes a Journey to the Center of the Fourth (Amendment). Sticking with the sic-fi theme, here, Professor Martin points out some appellate judicial time-travel!