Quote:
|
Originally Posted by D. Scarlatti
When they concur, they agree with the disposition, but not the reasoning. When they dissent, they agree with neither.
|
A concurrence is generally assumed to be a full agreement with the reasoning insofar as it's stated, frequently with some additions or qualifications. If a majority opinion garners five votes and four of the Justices write regular concurring opinions, the opinion of the Court is a majority opinion. The place where pluralities come into play is when you start in on special concurrences, which mainly consist of opinions "concurring in the result."
Quote:
|
* It's also possible to agree with the reasoning, but not the outcome, depending on one's attitude toward precedent, and ways of interpreting the Constitution, according to "original intent" and so on.
|
And if that's where a Justice is, s/he publishes a dissent. Concurrences or dissents are defined narrowly by which way the opinion comes down on the outcome. And, of course, it is not possible to literally agree with the entirety of the majority's reasoning and yet disagree with the outcome, as part of the (expressed or implied) reasoning of any majority opinion has to be that there is no precedent on point, or that existing precedent supports (or at least does not bar) the result reached, or that existing precedent is invalid.