In the early days of the US Supreme Court, the judges would each give their own opinion on a case. But Chief Justice John Marshall wanted the court to speak as one, to show that the court had the final say. However, there were still cases where judges disagreed and wrote their own opinions. Nowadays, some people question whether these disagreements make the court seem less reliable. They wonder why judges would spend time writing an opinion that doesn’t have any effect on the case. But there are good reasons for this. Dissenting opinions can help to clarify the law and show different perspectives. They can also serve as a record for future cases. So, even though dissenting opinions may cause conflict, they can also be valuable. Judges have a duty to dissent when they strongly disagree with the majority opinion. Dissents can be about different interpretations of the law or about social issues. Sometimes dissents can have a big impact, like in the case of Judge Blue’s dissent. Judges use dissenting opinions to express their views and sometimes to argue for changes in the law. In a case in Florida, a prominent defendant appealed his conviction for bribery and unlawful behavior. The court made a decision that was very divided, with many different opinions from the judges. The case even led to an investigation of one of the judges. Sometimes, the reasoning in a dissenting opinion can persuade another judge to change their mind, like in the case of Osceola Co. v. Best Diversified, Inc. where a judge switched sides after reading a colorful dissent. Sometimes, judges write dissenting opinions to improve the majority opinion, or to point out flaws in the majority’s reasoning. Dissenting opinions can also be written when a group of judges reach a different decision than a smaller panel of judges had. This shows that there might be something wrong with the majority’s decision. Sometimes, judges in higher courts disagree with the majority decision and write a dissenting opinion. This dissent can become the law if the issue comes up again and the higher court agrees with the dissenting judge. A dissent can also prompt the legislative branch to change the law. For example, in one case, the legislature changed a law after judges in the higher court disagreed with the majority decision. Sometimes judges write dissenting opinions when they disagree with the majority of the court. They do this in the hope that future courts will see their point of view and change the law. One example of a famous dissent that became the law is when Judge Harlan disagreed with the decision in Plessy v. Ferguson, and his words eventually became the basis for the decision in Brown v. Board of Education. Justice Harlan’s idea that the Constitution should treat everyone equally regardless of race was not accepted in some cases, but Justice Thomas used it to support his opinion in a different case. He also pointed out that a powerful dissent can inspire future advocates and give hope that unfair laws can change. Dissenting opinions are important because they can show where the law can be improved and can change the minds of other judges. Even if a dissent isn’t popular now, it could become the majority opinion in the future. So, sometimes a judge has to say “I dissent” to make a difference. This passage includes references to legal cases and opinions, as well as lectures and interviews, discussing the role of dissenting opinions in the court system. It also mentions specific cases and judges. These citations are from legal cases and articles, with one mentioning the significance of dissenting opinions and another discussing the background of some attorneys. The last part mentions the purpose of the Florida Bar.
Source: https://www.floridabar.org/the-florida-bar-journal/i-must-dissent-why/
Leave a Reply