How is a concurring opinion different from a dissenting opinion? A) A concurring opinion agrees with the majority decision, but for different legal reasons, while a dissenting opinion explains why one or more justices disagree with the majority.

B) A concurring opinion asserts that two similar cases should be aligned and ruled on together, while a dissenting opinion insists that the case being heard is singular and unique.

C) A concurring opinion demands that all justices rule in the same way on a case, while a dissenting opinion explains the differing opinions of justices who ruled the same way on a case.

D) A concurring opinion explains why a justice disagrees with the majority decision, but abstains from ruling on the case, while a dissenting opinion describes the feelings of the majority.

A)

Explanation:

The main difference between these two terms is that a concurring opinion agrees with the majority decision, but for different legal reasons, while a dissenting opinion explains why one or more justices disagree with the majority. Each of which tends to ocurr often in court cases where various judges analyze and pass judgment of another judges decision on a specific case. With a concurring opinion most, if not all, judges agree with the decision that has been made but tend to give different reasons as to why they believe the decision was justified.

A: A concurring opinion agrees with the majority decision, but for different legal reasons, while a dissenting opinion explains why one or more justices disagree with the majority.

Explanation:

I did the quiz. here's proof:

well it depends i think people around the world are coming around to gay marriage. but if you are talking abortion then wow, so much to talk about. such as men thinking they have the right to choose if women can, the fact there are health concerns if the women can't get one, and many more arguments to discuss. so i would definitely say abortion would be a much more interesting topic.