Answer :
Final answer:
The assertion is true; judges who disagree with the majority opinion commonly write dissenting opinions to express their viewpoints. Those in the minority can influence future legal interpretations and potentially overturn precedents. Concurring opinions are also written by justices who agree with the majority's decision but not their reasoning. Therefore, the correct answer is option a. True.
Explanation:
When a case is before the Supreme Court, a majority of justices vote to determine the outcome, with at least five of the nine justices needing to agree for a majority opinion. However, those justices who do not agree with the decision have the opportunity to write dissenting opinions, which articulate their reasons for disagreeing with the majority. These dissenting opinions can have a significant impact, as they may influence future legal thinking or even lead to the overturning of precedent.
In addition to dissenting opinions, justices who agree with the majority's decision but not with their reasoning can write concurring opinions, highlighting different legal points or reasoning. This dynamic within the Court is critical, as it demonstrates the decision-making process and might affect later rulings. The most senior justice within the dissenting group often assigns who will write the dissenting opinion; however, any justice is free to write their own separate dissent if they wish.
