Answer :
Final answer:
The claim that a judge can write a dissenting opinion if they disagree with the majority on an appellate case is true. Dissenting and concurring opinions are crucial for legal debate and the evolution of case law, and they provide transparency in the judiciary's decision-making process.
Explanation:
The statement that a judge who disagrees with the majority opinion in an appeal may write a dissenting opinion is true. In the United States Supreme Court, as well as in other appellate courts, when judges or justices are in the minority on a case, they may choose to express their differing viewpoints in a dissenting opinion. These opinions are critical as they can influence future cases, illuminate the decision-making process, and provide a foundation for overturning precedent in subsequent rulings.
Majority opinions are the official decisions of the court with which a majority of the justices agree. A dissenting opinion is written by any justice who disagrees with the majority, whereas a concurring opinion is written by a justice who agrees with the majority's conclusion but for different reasons. Both types of opinions are crucial for understanding the Court's legal reasoning and how judicial interpretations can vary.
Although all justices may participate in drafting opinions, the most senior justice in the majority typically assigns the task of writing the majority opinion, and the most senior justice among the dissenters may assign the responsibility for the dissenting opinion. Nevertheless, justices have the individual liberty to write separate dissenting or concurring opinions to fully express their legal perspectives.
