0
Why do justices use precedents in majority opinions and dissents?
Wiki User
∙ 9y ago
To show that other cases with similar circumstances came to a similar decision
Wiki User
∙ 9y ago
Evan Fink
I don’t freaking know
Add your answer:
Earn +20 pts
How are precedents used in majority opinions and dissents?
to support an argument by showing that because other courts have made similar decisions, the decision in the current case must be logical
This person assigns the writing of opinions to the justices?
chief justice
What are the steps in deciding major supreme court cases?
Someone petitions the Supreme Court to review a case on appealThe lawyers submit briefsThe justices vote to decide which cases to hearThe Clerk schedules oral argumentsThe justices read all briefs and lower court documentsThe justices have their clerks research precedents and other informationThe justices listen to oral argumentsThe justices hold a case conference to discuss issues and take a voteOne justice is assigned to write the official opinion of the CourtThe opinion is circulated for commentsOther justices write concurring or dissenting opinions (optional)The decision is released to the parties and the general public
Who assigns writing opinions to the justices?
The "opinion of the Court" is synonymous with the Court's decision. The Opinion gives the verdict and explains the reasoning behind the decision reached.The privilege of writing the official opinion falls to the most senior justice in the majority group, or to the Chief Justice if he voted with the majority; this person may choose to write the opinion, or may assign the task to another member of the majority.If the justices who voted against the majority wish to issue a unified dissenting opinion, they decide amongst themselves who will author the opinion, then the others, if in agreement, will "join" the opinion.Individual justices may write their own opinions, regardless of whether they agree with the majority. Justices may also "join" or sign any other written opinion they agree with. This generally strengthens the verdict.All published opinions except for Per Curiam decisions may be used as precedent in future litigation.For more information about Supreme Court opinions, see Related Links, below.
What is the lasting effect of majority opinions?
The minority opinions of today might be the majority opinions of tomorrow so it's good to let your opinions be heard for the future.
Why do justices precedents in majority opinions and dissents?
To show that other cases with similar circumstances came to a similar decision
How are precedents used in majority opinions and dissents?
to support an argument by showing that because other courts have made similar decisions, the decision in the current case must be logical
When a supreme court justice disagree with majority opinion of the court they are?
dissenting.
What determines the outcome of a case heard by supreme court?
After all th opinions have been written and finalized, the justices announced their final decisions. The decisions are from the majority vote of the justices
What are disssenter?
A dissenter is a type of person that disagrees or dissents. These disagreements can be with beliefs, opinions, and the like.
How do a concurring opinion and a unanimous opinion differ?
Majority opinion - Also called the "Opinion of the Court," this is the official verdict in the case that represents the vote of the majority of justicesDissenting opinion - An opinion written by a justice who disagrees with the majorityConcurring opinion - An opinion that agrees with the decision but may disagree with the some of the reasoning behind the Court opinion, or may elaborate on a point made or introduce further relevant informationThe most important type is the majority opinion. The majority opinion is, as the name suggests, the opinion of the majority of judges hearing the case. In most cases, a majority opinion requires five Justices, unless one or more Justices have recused themselves from a given decision. The majority opinion is important because it defines the precedent that all future courts hearing a similar case should follow.Majority opinions are sometimes accompanied by concurring opinions. Concurring opinions are written by individual Justices in the majority. These opinions agree with the majority opinion, but may stress a different point of law. Sometimes, concurring opinions will agree with the result reached by the majority, but for a different reason altogether.Opinions written by justices not in the majority are known as dissenting opinions. Dissenting opinions are important because they provide insight into how the Court reached its decision.the statement written to explain why the decision was made (GradPoint)For more information, see Related Questions, below.
Does the judicial review give the Judicial branch the right to study precedents?
Everyone has the right to study precedents, including you. All that means is reading the written opinions (decisions) of cases that are considered guidelines for use in deciding similar cases. And yes, the justices study precedents (or make their law clerks do it). Judicial review is an implied constitutional power that allows courts to evaluate a questioned law in a case they're hearing and determine if the law is constitutional. If the justices decide the law is unconstitutional, then it's nullified and becomes unenforceable.
What do one or more justices write when they disagree with the majority?
A Justice may write a dissenting opinion if he or she votes against the majority and wants to record his or her legal reasoning for consideration in future cases. Dissenting opinions, although written in opposition to the majority, or Court Opinion, may be cited as precedents in future litigation. An opinion that agrees with the decision in the case (although not necessarily the reasoning) is called a concurringopinion.For more information on opinions of the Court, see Related Questions, below.
What types of opinions does the supreme court issue?
Written OpinionsThe four most common opinions:MajorityConcurringDissentingPer CuriamThe Court's Opinion (usually also the majority opinion) is synonymous with the Court's decision. The "Opinion of the Court" gives the verdict and explains the reasoning behind the decision reached. The privilege of writing the official opinion falls to the most senior justice in the majority group, or to the Chief Justice if he voted with the majority; this person may choose to write the opinion, or may assign the task to another member of the majority. If the justices who voted against the majority wish to issue a unified opinion, they simply decide amongst themselves who will write it.Individual justices may write their own opinions, usually concurring or dissenting, regardless of whether they agree with the majority. Justices may also "join" or sign any other written opinion they agree with, even if they agree with more than one point-of-view. This generally strengthens the opinion.All published opinions except Per Curiam decisions may be used as precedent in future litigation.Opinion of the Court - The official opinion, whether unanimous or by majority voteMajority opinion - Also called the "Opinion of the Court," this is the official verdict in the case that represents the vote of the majority of justicesPlurality opinion - A concurring opinion joined by more justices than the official Court opinionDissenting opinion - An opinion written by a justice who disagrees with the majorityDissenting in part - An opinion written by a justice who voted with the majority on the decision, but disagrees with a portion of the reasoning in the majority opinion, which he or she explains in writingUnanimous opinion - An opinion authored by one justice, often (but not always) the Chief Justice, and signed by all justicesConcurring opinion - An opinion that agrees with the decision but may disagree with the some of the reasoning behind the Court opinion, or may elaborate on a point made or introduce further relevant informationConcurring in part - Typically an opinion written by a justice who voted against the majority, but agrees with a portion of the majority opinion, which he or she explains in writingConcurring in judgment - An opinion written by a justice who agrees with the decision, but not with the reasoning used to reach the decisionConcurring in part and dissenting in part - An opinion written by a justice who may have voted either way, but wants to explain which points are in agreement and which are in disagreement.Per Curiam opinion: The opinion is given by the full court, unsigned by the JusticesSeriatim opinion: Each justice on the Court writes his or her own, separate opinion; there is no majority opinion, only a majority verdict. This type of opinion was more common in the 18th, and parts of the 19th, centuriesThe most important type is the majority opinion. The majority opinion is, as the name suggests, the opinion of the majority of judges hearing the case. In most cases, a majority opinion requires five Justices, unless one or more Justices have recused themselves from a given decision. The majority opinion is important because it defines the precedent that all future courts hearing a similar case should follow.Majority opinions are sometimes accompanied by concurring opinions. Concurring opinions are written by individual Justices in the majority. These opinions agree with the majority opinion, but may stress a different point of law. Sometimes, concurring opinions will agree with the result reached by the majority, but for a different reason altogether.Opinions written by justices not in the majority are known as dissenting opinions. Dissenting opinions are important because they provide insight into how the Court reached its decision.Sometimes the court issues so many separate opinions that whichever opinion is joined by the most justices is referred to as a plurality, rather than a majority. One recent example of a decision holding a plurality opinion is that of Baez et al., v. Rees (2008), where Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Kennedy and Alito signed one opinion, and Justice Stevens wrote a separate concurring opinion, as did Justices Scalia, Breyer, and Thomas (Scalia also joined Thomas' concurrence). Justice Ginsberg wrote a dissenting opinion in which Justice Souter joined.There are also a number of cases where members of the majority each wrote a concurring opinion, without creating a unified majority or plurality opinion, as well as cases where the court decision was released without the signature of any justice, in an anonymous fashion. This latter form is known as a per curiam decision. Bush v. Gore (2000) is a recent example. Cases decided per curiam do not create a precedent that can be cited in future litigation.Plurality and per curiam decisions tend to create confusion as to how a federal or constitutional law is to be interpreted.
What are the steps in deciding major supreme court cases?
Someone petitions the Supreme Court to review a case on appealThe lawyers submit briefsThe justices vote to decide which cases to hearThe Clerk schedules oral argumentsThe justices read all briefs and lower court documentsThe justices have their clerks research precedents and other informationThe justices listen to oral argumentsThe justices hold a case conference to discuss issues and take a voteOne justice is assigned to write the official opinion of the CourtThe opinion is circulated for commentsOther justices write concurring or dissenting opinions (optional)The decision is released to the parties and the general public
This person assigns the writing of opinions to the justices?
chief justice
Who assigns writing opinions to the justices?
The "opinion of the Court" is synonymous with the Court's decision. The Opinion gives the verdict and explains the reasoning behind the decision reached.The privilege of writing the official opinion falls to the most senior justice in the majority group, or to the Chief Justice if he voted with the majority; this person may choose to write the opinion, or may assign the task to another member of the majority.If the justices who voted against the majority wish to issue a unified dissenting opinion, they decide amongst themselves who will author the opinion, then the others, if in agreement, will "join" the opinion.Individual justices may write their own opinions, regardless of whether they agree with the majority. Justices may also "join" or sign any other written opinion they agree with. This generally strengthens the verdict.All published opinions except for Per Curiam decisions may be used as precedent in future litigation.For more information about Supreme Court opinions, see Related Links, below.
