Why do justices use precedents in majority opinions and dissents

Justices use precedents in majority opinions and dissents to give their decisions context and to explain why their decisions are fair and just. Precedents are rulings from previous cases that set a standard and create consistency in the law. By referencing precedents, justices can demonstrate why their decisions are in line with previous cases and therefore with the law.

Explanation

The answer above explains why justices use precedents in majority opinions and dissents. Precedents are rulings from previous cases that set a standard and create consistency in the law. By referencing these precedents, justices can demonstrate why their decisions are in line with previous cases and therefore with the law.

The use of precedents is an important tool in helping justices make decisions that are fair and just. Justices are able to look back to previous cases to see what the law says about a particular issue, and to determine if the current case should be judged similarly. Without the use of precedents, justices would have to make decisions without any guidance from previous cases, which could lead to inconsistencies in the law.

The use of precedents also helps create clarity and predictability in the law. If a precedent has been set in a previous case, future cases that have similar facts and circumstances can be decided in the same way. This helps to ensure that people know what to expect from the law, as well as providing guidance to attorneys and judges when they are making decisions.

It’s important to note that justices do not always follow precedents. Justices have the power to decide which precedents to follow and which to reject. They may choose to reject a precedent if it is outdated or if it is not applicable to the case at hand. This allows justices to make decisions that are more in line with the current trends in the law and the underlying principles that the previous cases were based upon.