Quote:
|
Originally Posted by D. Scarlatti
That's not what I was asking. I was asking: Who says "[a] concurrence is generally assumed to be a full agreement with the reasoning insofar as it's stated, frequently with some additions or qualifications"?
You seem to be correcting my definition. Where did I err?
|
You said "[w]hen [Justices] concur, they agree with the disposition, but not the reasoning." That's not correct--unless explicitly stated, a regular concurrence indicates that the Justice
does agree with the reasoning, s/he just has something s/he'd like to add.
Quote:
|
Special concurrences are something else again. They are written by judges that join the majority opinion, but wish to comment on, for example, public policy determinations that are generally outside the court's purview.
|
I'm not working off of that definition of a special concurrence, though it is, admittedly, a term with no precise meaning. I'm talking about any concurrence that isn't regular in the sense that it does not say "Justice X [with whom Justice Y and Z join], concurring," at the top. Mainly what I'm talking about are concurrences in the result.