which of the following best explains reason justices use precedents in majority opinions and dissents
to review the main points that were origionally presented in the case
to familiarize themselves with cases that had opposite outcomes
to show that other cases with similar circumstances came to a similar decision
to emphasize the importance of the judical process in making a decision
The most appropriate explanation for why justices use precedents in majority opinions and dissents is: to show that other cases with similar circumstances came to a similar decision.
The best explanation for why justices use precedents in majority opinions and dissents is to show that other cases with similar circumstances came to a similar decision. Precedents are previous legal cases that have established a rule or principle that can be used as a guide in subsequent cases with similar facts. Justices refer to these precedents to demonstrate consistency and to argue that their decision aligns with previous legal interpretations. By highlighting the existence of prior cases with similar circumstances and outcomes, justices can support their reasoning and bolster the legitimacy of their decision within the judicial process.
The best explanation for why justices use precedents in majority opinions and dissents is to show that other cases with similar circumstances came to a similar decision. This is known as the principle of stare decisis, which means "to stand by things decided." Justices refer to past legal rulings and decisions (precedents) in order to ensure consistency in the application of the law and to provide stability and predictability in the legal system.
To get to this answer, you can analyze the different options provided in the question:
1. To review the main points that were originally presented in the case: While this may be true, it does not specifically explain why justices use precedents. Justices review precedents to establish a legal framework and precedent when making their decisions.
2. To familiarize themselves with cases that had opposite outcomes: Justices may indeed review cases with opposite outcomes to understand different perspectives, but this does not fully explain why they use precedents. They use precedents to determine how similar cases were previously decided.
3. To show that other cases with similar circumstances came to a similar decision: This option aligns with the principle of stare decisis and is the most accurate explanation. Justices rely on precedents to demonstrate that similar cases were decided in a consistent manner, reinforcing the importance of following established legal principles.
4. To emphasize the importance of the judicial process in making a decision: While the judicial process is indeed important, it does not directly explain why justices use precedents in their opinions. Precedents are relied upon to establish legal consistency, not solely to emphasize the importance of the process itself.
In summary, the explanation that justices use precedents in majority opinions and dissents to show that other cases with similar circumstances came to a similar decision is the most accurate and comprehensive explanation.