Dissenting in General Herring v. United States, in Particular….pdfVIP

Dissenting in General: Herring v. United States, in Particular The Harvard community has made this article openly available. Please share how this access benefits you. Your story matters. Citation Judge Nancy Gertner, Dissenting in General: Herring v. United States, in Particular, in Essays in Honor of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg (Feb. 4, 2013) (on file with the Harvard Law School Library). Accessed January 15, 2016 11:49:00 AM EST Citable Link /urn-3:HUL.InstRepos Terms of Use This article was downloaded from Harvard Universitys DASH repository, and is made available under the terms and conditions applicable to Open Access Policy Articles, as set forth at /urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:dash.current.terms-of- use#OAP (Article begins on next page) Dissenting in General: Herring v. United States, in Particular Judge Nancy Gertner Professor of Practice ne can describe Justice Ginsburg as a reluctant dissenter. She Oagrees with Chief Justice Roberts that the Supreme Court pro- vides clearer guidance and its opinions receive more deference when they are unanimous. When deciding whether to write separately, she  asks, “Is this dissent or concurrence really necessary?” “Really necessary” dissents would include not only those that force the majority to improve  their opinion, or those that could well become a majority opinion af- ter drafts are exchanged. They involve dissents that have implications beyond the case at hand, and even beyond th