A Justice on the Supreme Court, or any court for that matter, has the responsibility to make decisions that are consistant with the Consitution and the Bill of Rights of the United States. Many controversial issues of the day actually do revolve around this very central matter of Constitutionality. Thus, it is possible to make judgments upon an individual nomination based upon this opinion.
When a Supreme Court "dissents" it is disagreeing with the majority opinion.
When a Supreme Court "dissents" it is disagreeing with the majority opinion.
A US Supreme Court justice who disagrees with the majority opinion writes a dissenting opinion, explaining why he or she disagrees with the majority.
A Supreme Court justice may choose to write a concurring opinion when he or she agrees with the majority decision, but wants to add perceptions or legal reasoning not addressed, or not addressed to that justice's satisfaction, in the majority opinion (opinion of the Court).
add points to the majority opinion
dissenting opinion
A concurring opinion
concurring opinion
The term "minority opinion" is a bit unorthodox, considering those who vote against the majority may not be unified in their reasoning. When a Supreme Court justice wants to express disagreement with the opinion of the Court (usually the majority), he or she may write a dissenting opinion. It is not necessary for the dissenting justice to agree with anyone else on the Court.
Roger B. Taney, who presided over the Supreme Court from 1836 until 1864, succeeded John Marshall as Chief Justice. He is best remembered as the man who wrote the controversial opinion in the Dred Scott case declaring slaves were property and could never be citizens of any state, one of the catalysts to the Civil War.
Laws & ruling.
Laws & ruling.