concurring judgment A concurring judgment is one in which the reasoning is different, but not the end result. (A dissenting judgment, however, is one that differs in the result from that of the majority.)
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.
because the inference might be based on poor reasoning
One might be - "We will bring the killer to justice". Another might be - Yet again, the justice system had failed the people.
Express how some one is feeling and how could this affect others
A supreme court justice may prioritize issues related to constitutional interpretation, the protection of individual rights, or the implications of the ruling on precedent. The dissent could focus on concerns about the majority's approach to legal principles, potential societal impacts, or the integrity of judicial processes. Ultimately, the justice might emphasize the need for a more nuanced understanding of the law or a stronger commitment to upholding civil liberties.
because the inference might be based on poor reasoning
Husky Express is down, but there MIGHT be enough fan messages saying they want it back, so it might come out in English.
Faulty reasoning might accidentally lead to the right answer. Different parts in the faulty reasoning may cancel each other out. If faulty reasoning consistently gives the correct answer, then it is opinion and not fact that the reasoning was faulty in the first place. Research is the best method to determine opinion from facts.
Husky Express is down, but there MIGHT be enough fan messages saying they want it back, so it might come out in English.
justice might have them
Majority
The majority is white people right now but in a few years blacks and Mexicans will be the majority while white people will be the minority!