What is the point of dissenting SCOTUS opinions?

[Elendil_s_Heir]

@Polycarp

To get this a bit more defined, the Jay and Ellsworth courts, in the 1790s, wrote the “seriatim” opinions described in DSYouing’s first paragraph…

Read the early decisions of the court sometime. They had so few cases, there was room to publish summaries of the arguments of opposing counsel!

[glowacks]

I interpret “society never moves backward” as a sort of tautology, to remind people that time “flows” (not literally true, but good enough for the point I’m making) in one direction and thus opinions once expressed tend to be remembered whereas opinions yet to be expressed are unknown. It is certainly possible for society to retrogress in some way, but it will always do so with knowledge of what was true in the past. Even if some information about past times is lost, people will always remember what has happened in the recent past and their current views will be shaped by that. No one knows how society will develop in the future other than vague suggestions based on theoretical demographic shifts; it is thus impossible to argue for anything based on how things might be in the future whereas it is common to argue based how things were in the past.

[Max_Torque]

Sometimes the purpose of the dissent is so that a Justice can throw a hissy fit:

@Scalia's dissent

It has been rendered the solemn duty of the Supreme Court of the United States, laid upon it by Congress in pursuance of the Federal Government’s power “[t]o regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States,” U.S. Const., Art. I, §8, cl. 3, to decide What Is Golf. I am sure that the Framers of the Constitution, aware of the 1457 edict of King James II of Scotland prohibiting golf because it interfered with the practice of archery, fully expected that sooner or later the paths of golf and government, the law and the links, would once again cross, and that the judges of this august Court would some day have to wrestle with that age-old jurisprudential question, for which their years of study in the law have so well prepared them: Is someone riding around a golf course from shot to shot really a golfer? The answer, we learn, is yes. The Court ultimately concludes, and it will henceforth be the Law of the Land, that walking is not a “fundamental” aspect of golf.

[Kimmy_Gibbler]

@Max_Torque

Sometimes the purpose of the dissent is so that a Justice can throw a hissy fit:

As Slate once observed, there’s a reason why the book is called Scalia Dissents and not Scalia Convinces Everyone That He’s Right.

[Pleonast]

@Scalia's dissent

It has been rendered the solemn duty of the Supreme Court of the United States, laid upon it by Congress in pursuance of the Federal Government’s power “[t]o regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States,” U.S. Const., Art. I, §8, cl. 3, to decide What Is Golf. I am sure that the Framers of the Constitution, aware of the 1457 edict of King James II of Scotland prohibiting golf because it interfered with the practice of archery, fully expected that sooner or later the paths of golf and government, the law and the links, would once again cross, and that the judges of this august Court would some day have to wrestle with that age-old jurisprudential question, for which their years of study in the law have so well prepared them: Is someone riding around a golf course from shot to shot really a golfer? The answer, we learn, is yes. The Court ultimately concludes, and it will henceforth be the Law of the Land, that walking is not a “fundamental” aspect of golf.

That’s not a hissy fit, it’s comedy gold!