I believe the questioner means a dissenting OPINION.
A dissenting opinion DOES tend to give the other side's point-of-view on whatever topic or legal matter was under discussion.
A dissenting decision is not necessarily good or badβit simply represents an alternate perspective or disagreement with the majority opinion. Dissenting opinions can provide valuable insights and challenge prevailing views, fostering healthy debate and leading to more informed decisions.
What Black claims at the end of the dissent is that as a result of the Court's decision, it will have caused the First Amendment to suffer a "devastating blow" by allowing the government to silence dissenting voices.
An unanimous verdict is when all members of a jury or group reach an agreement on a decision or outcome. It means that everyone involved is in complete accord and there are no dissenting opinions. It is often required in legal proceedings for a verdict to be reached.
In Plessy v. Ferguson, the dissenting opinion argued that the "separate but equal" doctrine sanctioned by the majority perpetuated inequality and violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The dissent maintained that segregation based on race was inherently discriminatory and could not be justified under the Constitution.
I don't have personal opinions, but from a legal perspective, the dissent that provides a more coherent and persuasive argument based on legal principles, precedent, and logic would be considered more compelling. Ultimately, the strength of the dissenting opinion would depend on its ability to effectively challenge and present an alternative viewpoint to the majority decision.
The dictator's oppressive regime enforced strict censorship laws to silence dissenting voices.
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.
Dissenting opinionDissenting Opinion
often a mixed decision with majority, dissenting, and even concurring opinions.
....disagrees with the majority opinion, and explains his legal rationale for doing so.
You could just try this resource:Plessy v. FergusonPrimary source document outlining the Supreme Court's decision and a dissenting opinion. See the related link.
The basis for a good debate.
The basis for a good debate.
Yes. A dissenting opinion outlines one or more justices' reasoning about why the Supreme Court should have made a different decision. While dissenting opinions do not carry the force of law, they may be cited, and sometimes become a more important part of case law than the majority opinion.
A dissenting opinion is written when a justice disagrees with the majority opinion (which carries the force of law). If a justice is writing a dissenting opinion, that means he or she voted with the minority group, and wants to explain the reason why he or she disagrees with the official Opinion of the Court. Dissenting opinions may be cited, but are not enforceable. A good example is if you have 3 people. One of them wants a blue car, the other 2 want a red one. The majority is the 2 people who want a red car. Whoever doesn't want a red car, is the dissenting. (Dissenting is whatever isn't the majority) Search Dissenting Opinion for more details.
"One voice" refers to a situation where a single individual or opinion holds significant influence or power over a group, organization, or decision-making process. It implies a lack of diversity or dissenting viewpoints in the discussion or decision.
Nothing really "happens". It's published along with the majority opinion but doesn't change the majority decision in any way. Unless the Court votes unanimously, there will generally be a dissenting opinion. A justice may even opt to write an opinion "concurring" with the judgment itself, but indicating that he has reached the same conclusion via different reasoning, or "concurring in part and dissenting in part" which means he thinks part of the majority opinion is good and part of it is not. It's not uncommon for there to even be three or more opinons published, with various justices agreeing with each other about some parts but disagreeing on others. For example, the majority opinion might be: the decision of the lower court is overturned for Reason 1, Reason 2, and Reason 3. A dissenting opinion may state that the decision should not be overturned at all, and an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part may say that Reason 3 is total hogwash (they generally polite it up a bit, but that's often the general gist... reading Supreme Court opinions is sometimes more entertaining than you might think), but that Reason 1 and Reason 2 are still good, and a fourth opinion might say that Reasons 1, 2, and 3 are all wrong, but the decision should still be overturned because of Reason 4. None of this changes the basic decision itself (to overturn the lower court's ruling) in any way.
There was only one dissenting vote; everyone else agreed.