Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Strict Separationist
You gave a definition of a concurrence that was not quite correct, so I supplied several examples of cases in which Justices concurred but agreed with the reasoning of the majority, thus creating a majority opinion rather than a plurality.
|
It's just a guess, but perhaps Scarlatti was a bit flummoxed* by your implication that a judge who writes a concurring opinion presumptively agrees with the majority's reasoning. I've never heard of such a presumption and can't imagine why it would be necessary or even desirable. After all, one can generally discern whether the concurring judge agrees with the majority rationale simply by checking to see whether he joined the majority opinion. Moreover, the concurring judge invariably lets us know what he's doing early in his opinion.
*I certainly was.