Concurring is that of agreeing; dissenting is that of disagreeing.
And I learnt this in 30 seconds off Google, using 'define:...' -- google it first. -.-
Dissenting means you disagree concurring means you do agree
Dissenting means you disagree concurring means you do agree
You can take a look at the opinions at the link below.Justice Thomas wrote a concurring opinionJustice Alito wrote a concurring opinion in which Justice Kennedy joinedJustice Stevens wrote a dissenting opinion in which Justices Souter and Ginsberg joinedJustice Breyer wrote an opinion concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part
Majority, Concurring, Dissenting, and Per Curiam
The basis for a good debate.
A concurring opinion is written by a justice who agrees with the outcome reached by the majority, but who came to that conclusion in a different way and wants to write about why. A dissenting opinion is written by a justice who disagreed with the majority and wants his disagreement known and explained
There is no mandated limit; however, the practical limit would be nine -- one for each member of the Court. Only one opinion may be submitted as the official opinion of the Court; however, each justice is free to write a dissenting or concurring (or dissenting in part and concurring in part) opinion as part of the legal record. While concurring and dissenting opinions are unenforceable, they may be cited as precedent in future cases and sometimes become more influential than the original opinion of the Court.
A Justice may write a dissenting opinion if he or she votes against the majority and wants to record his or her legal reasoning for consideration in future cases. Dissenting opinions, although written in opposition to the majority, or Court Opinion, may be cited as precedents in future litigation. An opinion that agrees with the decision in the case (although not necessarily the reasoning) is called a concurringopinion.For more information on opinions of the Court, see Related Questions, below.
A majority opinion explains the reasoning behind the courts ruling while a dissenting opinion explains a disagreement with the courts ruling
Concurring means agreeing. So an concurring opinion is one when two people agree.
There were no dissenting opinions because the case ruled against Nixon 8-0. The concurring opinion was a collective agreement between all justices in that the tapes held criminal conduct between the President and his men as well as that Nixon's claim to absolute executive privilege was wrong. Executive privilege is a right to the president; however, it is not absolute and can be checked by the Congress or Supreme Court.
No. If a Supreme Court justice disagrees with the decision and wants to make his or her opinion a matter of public and judicial record, the justice must write a dissenting opinion.For more information, see Related Questions, below.