it's effectively impossible to declare, within the decision itself, a decision to be a non-precedent. really, all this does, at best, is establish a precedent for making one-off decisions by declaring them to be non-precedents.
moreover, any time the supreme court makes a decision, the default assumption for lower courts and really, all americans, is to assume any subsequent supreme court would likely find similarly in similar situations. what's lacking is a clear-cut rule for when the decision applies, so there's more guesswork involved in determining if some new case is similar enough to the original "non-precedent"-producing case.
frankly, scalia's assertion that the case was not to be taken as establishing a precedent was really just his confession that the 5-4 vote came first for political reasons, not legal ones, and that he then wrote a garbage opinion as a fig leaf to thinly disguise the fact that 5 republican justices imposed their personal political preference over the will of the people simply because they could get away with it.
*that* is why he didn't want it to be taken as precedent.
ianal
= new reply since forum marked as read
