How do judicial reviews in the majority opinion differ from those in the dissent?

English

2 answers:

ohaa [14]3 years ago

5 0

The correct answer is B. The majority opinion uses lower courts' decision on the case of evidence.

Judicial review is termed as a process which legislative or executive actions are being subjected to review by the judiciary.

Only the judicial review can invalidate government actions and laws which are being incompatible to higher authority.

Law can be invalidated either by violating the constitutional terms or by being unlawful.

Natalija [7]3 years ago

3 0

Judicial reviews in the majority opinion differ from those in the dissent by B. The majority opinion uses lower courts' decisions on the same case as evidence.

<h3>Further explanation </h3>

Judicial review is a process which executive or legislative actions are subjected to review by the judiciary. The other meaning of it is when justices look at the previous courts decisions on the case

Whereas dissent itself is an opinion in a legal case when judges disagree and there are others such as the majority that agrees. When one or more judges express disagreement with the majority opinion of the members of the court, it is said that they are dissenting.

Judicial reviews in the dissent differ from those in the majority opinion by the dissent depends on previous, similar cases for support. The dissent uses the majority opinion as evidence in a judicial review. While dissenting opinions can be cited in other cases when a change in the law is needed. The dissent uses the majority opinion as evidence of its case.

<h3>Learn more</h3>