Hughes Essay: Justices In The Minority

Justices in the Minority In all Supreme Court cases that are not unanimous, there will always be a dissenting opinion that counters the majority opinion and express the views of the minority. Though the minority opinion does not represent the final decision of the Supreme Court in any way, it presents the reasons for why some of the Justices did not agree with the majority opinion. As stated by Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes “a dissent in a court of last resort is an appeal to the brooding spirit of the law, to the intelligence of a future day, when a later decision may possibly correct the error into which the dissenting judge believes the court to have been betrayed.” In essence, Hughes presents that a dissenting opinion might provide for the ever-changing interpretations of the law and has the ability to correct past decisions to best account

A dissenting judge who believes that the decision of the majority is incorrect in the present day has the ability to influence and argue for a future generation through a dissenting opinion that presents strong arguments to counter the majority opinion. A dissenting opinion provides a point of reference that the judicial system can use in order to either reinterpret the majority decision because of the strong argument that a dissenting opinion could provide, or further support the majority decision by seeing the faults in the alternative, dissenting opinion. In addition to helping the decision making process of the lower courts, a dissenting opinion helps Americans fully understand the two sides of the argument that were considered by the Supreme Court. Seeing both sides of the argument allows Americans to take a side for what they think is right leading to a sway in public opinion that has the ability to alter