why do justices use precedents in majority opinions and dissents

Question

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

Answer 1

All of the options presented in the question are valid reasons why justices use precedents in majority opinions and dissents. Let's examine each one:

1. To review the main points that were originally presented in the case: Justices refer to precedents to understand the key arguments and issues that were discussed in previous cases. This helps them to evaluate the relevance and applicability of past decisions to the current case.

2. To familiarize themselves with cases that had opposite outcomes: Precedents often include cases with different outcomes, and justices consider these cases to understand the range of perspectives and reasoning employed by previous courts. This familiarity helps them to critically analyze and compare different legal arguments.

3. To show that other cases with similar circumstances came to a similar decision: Justices utilize precedents to demonstrate consistency in legal rulings. By referencing cases with similar facts or circumstances that arrived at the same decision, they emphasize the importance of maintaining consistency in interpreting and applying the law.

4. To emphasize the importance of the judicial process in making a decision: Justices use precedents to highlight the significance of the judicial system in shaping legal decisions. By referencing past cases, they underscore the role of precedent in establishing legal principles and the need for a thoughtful and systematic approach to decision-making.

Ultimately, referring to precedents allows justices to draw upon legal principles established in previous cases while also considering the context and nuances of the current case. This practice contributes to the consistency, predictability, and fairness of the judicial system.