as a part of their argument in the dissent what document do justices often criticize
relevent precedents
the constitution
the majority opinion
the bill of rights
Justices often criticize the majority opinion as a part of their argument in the dissent.
As a part of their argument in the dissent, justices often criticize the majority opinion. They may also critique relevant precedents that were relied upon by the majority opinion. It is less common for justices to directly criticize the Constitution or the Bill of Rights in their dissents, as these are foundational legal documents. However, they may interpret and apply these documents differently from the majority and express their disagreement in the dissenting opinion.
When justices write dissenting opinions, which are their disagreements with the majority opinion, they often criticize relevant precedents. Precedents refer to previous court decisions that have established legal principles. Justices may argue that the majority opinion fails to properly analyze or distinguish these past cases, and they may express their disagreement with how the majority has interpreted or applied these precedents.
However, it is important to note that justices typically do not criticize the Constitution itself in their dissenting opinions, as it is the fundamental law of the land and the basis for their authority. Instead, they may argue that the majority opinion misinterprets or misapplies constitutional provisions.
As for the Bill of Rights, while justices may disagree with how the majority interprets or protects certain rights, they generally do not criticize the Bill of Rights as a document in their dissenting opinions.
So in summary, justices often criticize relevant precedents when presenting their dissenting arguments, while they generally do not critique the Constitution or the Bill of Rights in such context.