0
When a justice agrees with the majority decision but for differing reasons he or she might write a?
Wiki User
∙ 9y ago
concurring opinion
Wiki User
∙ 12y ago
concurring opinion. In a concurring opinion, a justice expresses agreement with the outcome reached by the majority but provides their own reasoning or interpretation of the law. This allows the justice to emphasize specific points or provide alternative legal analysis.
Add your answer:
Earn +20 pts
What are four kinds of Supreme Court opinions?
The Four types of Supreme Court Opinions Includes: Unanimous Opinion: When the Supreme Court Justice Unanimously agrees with the decision. Majority Opinion: When the Majority agrees with the decision Concurrent Opinion: When a person agrees with the Majority of the decision, but for different reasons. Dissenting Opinion: When A person disagree with the Majority of the decision.
What does dissent in a case mean?
Dissenting means that for one reason or another a judge in an appellate or a justice in a Supreme Court case disagrees with the decision of the majority of the other judges. The justice or justices dissenting will usually write a dissenting opinon to go along with the main court opinion. The dissenting opinion will state reasons why the dissenting justices disagree with the majority decision.
What is a concurring opinion?
In US Supreme Court decisions, a concurring opinion is an opinion by one or more justices which agrees with the result the majority opinion reached but either for additional or other legal reasons which the majority opinion rests on. The writer of a concurring opinion is counted within the majority of justices who agreed on the ultimate result of the case, but disagrees in some way with the legal reasoning of the other justices. The concurring opinion sets forth that justice's own reasoning. In law, a concurring opinion is a written opinion by some of the judges of a court which agrees with the majority of the court but might arrive there in a different manner. In a concurring opinion, the author agrees with the decision of the court but normally states reasons different from those in the court opinion as the basis for his or her decision. When no absolute majority of the court can agree on the basis for deciding the case, the decision of the court may be contained in a number of concurring opinions, and the concurring opinion joined by the greatest number of jurists is referred to as the plurality opinion.In law, a concurring opinion is a written opinion by some of the judges of a court which agrees with the majority of the court but might arrive there in a different manner. In a concurring opinion, the author agrees with the decision of the court but normally states reasons different from those in the court opinion as the basis for his or her decision. When no absolute majority of the court can agree on the basis for deciding the case, the decision of the court may be contained in a number of concurring opinions, and the concurring opinion joined by the greatest number of jurists is referred to as the plurality opinion.
What did Justice Harlan mean when he said he was constrained to withhold his assent?
Justice Harlan concluded his dissent in Plessy v. Ferguson, (1896), with the following line:"For the reason stated, I am constrained to withhold my assent from the opinion and judgment of the majority."He meant that he could not agree with majority opinionor vote on the case (his was the lone dissent) for the reasons stated in his dissenting opinion.
What supported the dred Scott decision and the reasons for their supporters?
The Chief Justice invoked the Constitution. He reckoned that when the Founding Fathers declared that a man's property was sacred, they would have included slaves within their definition of property.
What is the role of majority rule in government?
Two ways to interpret and answer this:1) The role of majority rule is defined by the common interpretation of how and if it IS being used in certain ways.2) The role can be defined in many ways.Taken from wikipedia:Proponents of consensus decision-making view procedures that use majority rule as undesirable for several reasons. Majority voting is regarded as competitive, rather than cooperative, framing decision-making in a win/lose dichotomy that ignores the possibility of compromise or other mutually beneficial solutions.[3]On the other hand, some voting theorists[who?] have argued that majority rule leads to better deliberation practice than the alternatives, because it requires each member of the group to make arguments that appeal to at least half the participants and it encourages coalition-building.[4] Additionally, proponents of consensus argue that majority rule can lead to a 'tyranny of the majority'. However, voting theorists note that majority rule may actually prevent tyranny of the majority, in part because it maximizes the potential for a minority to form a coalition that can overturn an unsatisfactory decision.[5]Advocates of consensus would assert that a majority decision reduces the commitment of each individual decision-maker to the decision. Members of a minority position may feel less commitment to a majority decision, and even majority voters who may have taken their positions along party or bloc lines may have a sense of reduced responsibility for the ultimate decision. The result of this reduced commitment, according to many consensus proponents, is potentially less willingness to defend or act upon the decision.
What is the difference between revenge and justice?
Vengeance is the decision of an individual or comparatively small group, leading to paying someone back for evils that they did upon you or one close to you, uncaring of what their reasons, circumstances, or other actions are. Often, it doesn't matter what impedes it; vengeance will stop at nothing until the debt is repaid. Justice is the decision of many, the majority, leading to paying someone back for the evils that they did, relative to the evils that they did. It is not purely focused upon the punishment, but upon all the reasons surrounding it, why it's deserved and why it was done. An example could be this: a person is abused by another person who has guardianship over them in some way, shape, or form. The way of vengeance would be that person retaliating by abusing them in turn. The way of justice would be working to have the abuse brought to light in the eyes of others, so that the abuser can be appropriately punished according to the law.
How is the concurrent opinion different from the majority opinion?
A concurring opinion is one that has reached the same conclusion as the majority opinion, but for different reasons from the majority.
What did Chief Justice John Jay decline to do and for what reasons?
It was over the constitutions.
Present the main reasons that cause strategy failures, and what strategic decision can be taken to prevent such failures?
Present the main reasons that cause strategy failures, and what strategic decision can be taken to prevent such failures.
What were the reasons behind decision to explore the west?
because he want to expend the USA
Should you delete wma files once converted to itunes to avoid future duplicates?
It is your decision. There are reasons for keeping them and reasons for deleting them.
