• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Concurring and dissenting opinions by the Supreme Court

Buckeyes85

Buckeyes85

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 5, 2020
Messages
11,692
Reaction score
11,286
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
As many of you are aware, the typical process for any decision is a discussion amongst the justices as to which way they are going and why, and once a majority is reached someone is selected, or volunteers to draft the majority opinion. The draft is circulated and then those voting in the majority can suggest edits/revisions, etc. Once finalized, the justices can simply indicate they "concur" in the opinion, or write an opinion themselves concurring. For those who went the other way, they can dissent with or without offering an opinion as to why.

I mention only in that I doubt the draft opinion leaked this week will change much before the final publication lest there be the suggestion that pressure from either side after the leak forced them to change their thoughts on the subject. What I think will change is the forcefulness and length of both concurring opinions and dissenting opinions. Of course, neither of those change the main opinion but will be fodder for discussions in state legislatures about the correctness, or error of the Court's opinion. Particularl a road map for those arguing against restricting abortion rights.
 
Roberts is likely as pissed off as he is not just because of the leak itself but because he is the Justice trying to split off one of the 5 in the current Majority to a more balanced and reasonable decision as opposed to using this Mississippi Law to complete deconstruct Roe.

In addition, the 1st Draft Majority Opinion is one of the scariest most horrifying flawed and dangerous document I have ever read. Though I don't really have much in common with Roberts, I suspect his reading is not much different from mine in this instance.
 
jnug said:
Roberts is likely as pissed off as he is not just because of the leak itself but because he is the Justice trying to split off one of the 5 in the current Majority to a more balanced and reasonable decision as opposed to using this Mississippi Law to complete deconstruct Roe.

In addition, the 1st Draft Majority Opinion is one of the scariest most horrifying flawed and dangerous document I have ever read. Though I don't really have much in common with Roberts, I suspect his reading is not much different from mine in this instance.
Click to expand...
You could be right as to Roberts, but ordinarily when the court chooses someone to draft the majority opinion, it is because they not only are in agreement with the outcome, but the basis for it.

But note, I have not read the draft and have avoided doing so as I'm trying to cut down/out alcohol and reading it would probably prompt me to open a bottle :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom