The language can be strong at times. It can also apparently be civil but throw off the conventions and in that way be a slap in the face of the majority. Apparently what is unusual is to conclude a dissent with "I dissent" rather than "I respectfully dissent".

E.g. Scalia's recent dissent on the Arizona case - http://www.supremeco...df/11-182b5e1.pdf

p.51
[...]

As is often the case, discussion of the dry legalities that are the proper object of our attention suppresses the very human realities that gave rise to the suit. Arizona bears the brunt of the country’s illegal immigration problem. Its citizens feel themselves under siege by large numbers of illegal immigrants who invade their property, strain their social services, and even place their lives in jeopardy. Federal officials have been unable to remedy the problem, and indeed have recently shown that they are unwilling to do so. Thousands of Arizona’s estimated 400,000 illegal immigrants — including not just children but men and women under 30 — are now assured immunity from en­forcement, and will be able to compete openly with Arizona citizens for employment.

Arizona has moved to protect its sovereignty — not in contradiction of federal law, but in complete compliance with it. The laws under challenge here do not extend or revise federal immigration restrictions, but merely enforce those restrictions more effectively. If securing its territory in this fashion is not within the power of Arizona, we should cease referring to it as a sovereign State. I dissent.


FWIW. My $0.02.

Cheers,
Scott.