0
What else can I help you with?
What are four kinds of Supreme Court opinions?
The Four types of Supreme Court Opinions Includes: Unanimous Opinion: When the Supreme Court Justice Unanimously agrees with the decision. Majority Opinion: When the Majority agrees with the decision Concurrent Opinion: When a person agrees with the Majority of the decision, but for different reasons. Dissenting Opinion: When A person disagree with the Majority of the decision.
When a justice agrees with majoritys opinion but for different reasons this is called?
When a justice agrees with the majority's opinion but for different reasons, it is called a concurring opinion. This allows the justice to express their own reasoning and perspective on the case while still aligning with the overall decision of the majority. Concurring opinions can provide additional insights or highlight specific legal principles that the justice believes are important.
What does dissent in a case mean?
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.
What is a justice writes this when he or she agrees with the majority opinion but for a different reason?
A justice who agrees with the majority opinion but for different reasons writes a "concurring opinion." This type of opinion allows the justice to express their unique reasoning or perspective on the case, which may highlight different legal principles or considerations that support the same outcome. Concurring opinions can provide additional insights into the court's decision and may influence future cases.
What is the difference majority opinion, a dissenting opinion and conccrring opinion?
A concurring opinion is written by a justice who agrees with the outcome reached by the majority, but who came to that conclusion in a different way and wants to write about why. A dissenting opinion is written by a justice who disagreed with the majority and wants his disagreement known and explained
What is a consenting opinion?
A concurring opinion is a separate opinion written by a judge who agrees with the majority decision of the court but for different reasons or a different interpretation of the law. It provides additional insight or perspective to the court's decision.
Which would supreme court justice write if he or she disagreed with a ruling of the court?
If a Supreme Court justice disagrees with a ruling of the court, they would typically write a dissenting opinion. This opinion outlines their reasons for disagreeing with the majority's decision, often highlighting legal principles, precedents, and alternative interpretations of the law. Dissenting opinions can influence future cases and provide a counterargument that may resonate with later courts or justices.
What is a concurring opinion?
In US Supreme Court decisions, a concurring opinion is an opinion by one or more justices which agrees with the result the majority opinion reached but either for additional or other legal reasons which the majority opinion rests on. The writer of a concurring opinion is counted within the majority of justices who agreed on the ultimate result of the case, but disagrees in some way with the legal reasoning of the other justices. The concurring opinion sets forth that justice's own reasoning. In law, a concurring opinion is a written opinion by some of the judges of a court which agrees with the majority of the court but might arrive there in a different manner. In a concurring opinion, the author agrees with the decision of the court but normally states reasons different from those in the court opinion as the basis for his or her decision. When no absolute majority of the court can agree on the basis for deciding the case, the decision of the court may be contained in a number of concurring opinions, and the concurring opinion joined by the greatest number of jurists is referred to as the plurality opinion.In law, a concurring opinion is a written opinion by some of the judges of a court which agrees with the majority of the court but might arrive there in a different manner. In a concurring opinion, the author agrees with the decision of the court but normally states reasons different from those in the court opinion as the basis for his or her decision. When no absolute majority of the court can agree on the basis for deciding the case, the decision of the court may be contained in a number of concurring opinions, and the concurring opinion joined by the greatest number of jurists is referred to as the plurality opinion.
How does Justice Fortas defend and explain his decision in the majority opinion for Tinker v. Des Moines How strong is his reasoning What concerns do you have about his argument?
In the majority opinion for Tinker v. Des Moines, Justice Fortas defends the decision by emphasizing the First Amendment rights of students, arguing that they do not "shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate." He reasons that the students' silent protest did not disrupt the educational process and thus should be protected. While his reasoning is robust in advocating for civil liberties, one concern is the potential for conflicts between student expression and school authority, which could lead to challenges in maintaining an orderly educational environment.
What did Justice Harlan mean when he said he was constrained to withhold his assent?
Justice Harlan concluded his dissent in Plessy v. Ferguson, (1896), with the following line:"For the reason stated, I am constrained to withhold my assent from the opinion and judgment of the majority."He meant that he could not agree with majority opinionor vote on the case (his was the lone dissent) for the reasons stated in his dissenting opinion.
Which term describes the opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court?
The term that describes the opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court is "court opinion" or "majority opinion." This is the official statement that outlines the Court's reasoning and decision on a case. In addition to the majority opinion, there can also be concurring opinions (agreeing with the majority for different reasons) and dissenting opinions (disagreeing with the majority).
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.
