0
The opinions of the majority need little or no Constitutional protection because?
Wiki User
∙ 9y ago
The opinions of the majority need little or no Constitutional protection because they are popular.
Wiki User
∙ 9y ago
Add your answer:
Earn +20 pts
Why do the opinions of the majority need little constitutional protection?
The opinions of the majority generally do not need extensive constitutional protection because they already have significant influence in a democratic society. Constitutional protections primarily aim to safeguard the rights and freedoms of marginalized or minority groups, who may face discrimination or oppression in the face of majority opinions. By protecting minority rights, the constitution ensures a more balanced and fair society.
Why do the opinions of the majority need little or no protection?
Because they will be expressed, in a democracy, by the acts of their representatives in government. Governments vary in the extent to which they prevent the majority from discrimination against, or disenfranchisement of, the minority (a natural result of shared societal values). This was one reason for the parity of Senate representation in the US Congress: each state, regardless of population, has 2 US Senators.
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.
What did the Constitutional Convention propose?
The Constitutional convention was not actually called the constitutional convention because it was created to modify the Articles of Confederation. However, the articles, although they had some benefits, were very weak and gave most power to the states and not to the central gov't, so the constitution was drafted in secret, so as not to influence any of the framer's views by outside opinions.
how are percedents used in majority opinions and dissants?
To support an argument by showing that because other courts have made similar decisions the decision in the current case must be logical
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
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.
When a supreme court justice disagree with majority opinion of the court they are?
dissenting.
Is it constitutional to deny a citizen the equal protection of marriage laws?
No, it is not constitutional because the reasons given for restricting marriage to heterosexuals only do not pass the "heightened scrutiny" test appropriate for use when determining if a minority is merely being oppressed or if the law has any real merit. It has no legitimate purpose.
What do the hawwii harbors do different because of Pearl Harbor?
Pearl Harbor contained the best protection from the open sea, and still allowed for a majority of naval vessels to traverse in and out of it.
What are some independent judiciary examples?
Chief Justice John Roberts although an admitted Republican, voted to uphold Obamacare because he believed that the tax was constitutional, although the majority of Republican's dislike Obamacare.
Use the word opinions in a sentence?
Two people had a debate because they had different opinions
