judicial reviews in the majority opinion differ from those in the dissent because _______
the majority opinion uses the dissent as the basis of the argument
the majority opinion uses the cases with similar conclusions as support
the majority opinion uses lower courts decisions on the same case as evidence
the majority opinion uses summaris provided by the case attorneys
the majority opinion uses the cases with similar conclusions as support.
The correct answer is: the majority opinion uses the cases with similar conclusions as support.
Judicial reviews in the majority opinion differ from those in the dissent because the majority opinion uses the cases with similar conclusions as support.
To understand this, let's first clarify what a majority opinion and a dissent are in the context of a judicial review. In a court case with multiple judges, the majority opinion refers to the written opinion of the judges who form the majority and agree on the outcome of the case. On the other hand, the dissent refers to the written opinion of the judges who do not agree with the majority's decision.
One of the roles of the majority opinion is to explain the rationale behind the decision and provide legal arguments to support it. In doing so, the majority opinion often relies on cases with similar conclusions as support. By analyzing previous judicial decisions that are aligned with their ruling, the majority opinion seeks to establish a legal precedent and provide a coherent legal basis for their judgment.
In contrast, the dissenting opinion expresses the views of the judges who disagree with the majority's decision and reasoning. The dissenting judges may have different interpretations of the law or emphasize different legal principles than their colleagues in the majority.
Therefore, the correct statement is "the majority opinion uses the cases with similar conclusions as support." The majority opinion seeks to build its argument by referencing previous cases that have reached comparable conclusions, thus lending credibility and legal precedent to their ruling.