0
Why does the Supreme Court require a simple majority for a decision rather than five votes?
If all nine justices hear a case, five must agree on a decision because five votes represents a simple majority of the full court.
A decision requires a simple majority of the Justices hearing the case; sometimes fewer than nine justices are available. In the typical instance that all nine Supreme Court justices provide an opinion, a majority must consist of at least five votes; if eight justices are present, a decision still requires five votes; if six or seven justices are present, a decision requires at least four votes. The Court requires a quorum (the minimum number to conduct official business) of at least six justices to hear a case or conduct a vote.
On the current Court, votes are often split by ideology. Many decisions are resolved as 5-4 votes because four of the Court members are conservative and four are progressive. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, who could be regarded as being center-right, is often the swing voter determining which side is in the majority.
Those jurists who disagree with the majority are permitted -- but not required -- to write dissenting opinions which also form part of the record, and may be cited in future litigation.
In the event of tie votes by the Supreme Court, the lower court's ruling in the case being considered is upheld without comment. In other words, the Supreme Court issues no permanent decision on the laws involved in the case. Optionally, the Court may choose to hear reargument on the case, with the addition of the justice or justices who weren't present during the original oral arguments.
For more information, see Related Questions, below.
What else can I help you with?
What is a major difference between a majority opinion and dissenting opinion issued by the supreme court?
A majority opinion explains the reasoning behind the courts ruling while a dissenting opinion explains a disagreement with the courts ruling
Would you rather be the President a Senator a Representative or a Supreme Court Justice?
I would have been and supreme court justice, not a president because it can be all hard work that's in your hands. I don't know what a senator is, but I would be supreme court justice because you get to speak out your mind and don't need to hear what people have to say and make your decision of what's right!
Ask us statement best summarizes the inaccuracy contained in this description of the Supreme Court's decision-making process?
Justices write opinions after the verdict has been determined, not before public arguments.
Do US Supreme Court votes have to be unanimous?
No. Sometimes verdicts are unanimous, but more often they are split down political and ideological lines. The Supreme Court has become increasingly polarized in the 20th and 21st Centuries, making unanimous decisions the exception, rather than the rule. The Supreme Court requires only a simple majority vote to decide a case: If all nine justices are present, five of the nine must agree. The Court must have a quorum of six justices to hear a case.
Does the US Supreme Court hold trials?
The US Supreme Court doesn't hold trials in the usual sense; it is a final appeal, really. Contested decisions are brought up from lower courts, and if the supreme court chooses, it takes on the cases to review and to make the final decision on the case. The only cases the Supreme Court currently considers under original (trial) jurisdiction are disputes between the states, but these don't follow a standard trial format.
Why would the supreme court agree to review a lower court's decision?
Certain cases are important enough to require the authoritative decision of the nation's highest court rather than being decided by a lower court. If issues of constitutional interpretation are involved, that is the specialty of the Supreme Court.
Who made abortions legal in the US?
Rather than use the term "made legal" I would substitute "made LAWFUL." The decision was rendered by a majority opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court in a case known as "Roe vs. Wade."
How do you use tireless?
It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.
What Supreme Court ended slavery?
The 13th Amendment to the United States Constitution, ratified in 1865 after the Civil War, is what officially ended slavery in the United States. It was not a decision by the Supreme Court, but rather an Amendment passed by Congress and ratified by the states.
Must an Arkansas trial court follow a decision of the US Supreme Court?
Assuming the matter before the Arkansas trial court involves federal or constitutional law (rather than a state statute) and is analogous to a decision of the US Supreme Court, they are supposed to abide by Supreme Court decisions under the doctrine of stare decisis.If they fail to adhere to established interpretations of law, they are handing the defendant or respondent valid grounds for appealing his or her case.Yes.
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 a major difference between a majority opinion and dissenting opinion issued by the supreme court?
A majority opinion explains the reasoning behind the courts ruling while a dissenting opinion explains a disagreement with the courts ruling
Would you rather be the President a Senator a Representative or a Supreme Court Justice?
I would have been and supreme court justice, not a president because it can be all hard work that's in your hands. I don't know what a senator is, but I would be supreme court justice because you get to speak out your mind and don't need to hear what people have to say and make your decision of what's right!
What decision did the supreme court make in the Mississippi v Johnson?
In Mississippi v. Johnson, the Supreme Court made the decision that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the case, as it involved a political question that should be resolved by the elected branches of government, rather than the judiciary. Therefore, the Court dismissed the case.
Why were the majority of the people of Greece traders rather than farmers?
The majority of Greek males were farmers.
Why did the framers of the Constitution decide that the president rather then the public or the Congress can choose Supreme Court Justice?
The idea of this decision was to keep the justices out of politics so that their decisions would not be influenced by them wanting to be reelected.
What US Supreme Court case decision in 1964 ordered all states to organize their upper house senate by population rather than by county?
The U.S. Supreme Court case decision in 1964 that ordered all states to organize their upper house senate by population rather than by county is Reynolds v. Sims. The court ruled that the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment required state legislative districts to be roughly equal in population to ensure fair and equal representation for all citizens. This decision had a significant impact on the structure of state legislatures across the country.
