FR. RANHILIO CALLANGAN AQUINO

DECISIONS of the US Supreme Court that prevail by the vote of one member are not rare. Obergefell v. Hodges was a 5-4 case. And seldom is there eagerness to know who voted for the majority and who dissented. When the dissenting opinions are sought out, it is often for the laudable purpose of knowing what the counter-arguments were, what the antithesis was — and what might very well be majority opinion when a change in judicial climate takes place. And when it is asked who wrote what, it will very often be for purposes of discerning consistency with or digression from a magistrate’s known judicial philosophy.

Premium + Digital Edition

Ad-free access


P 80 per month
(billed annually at P 960)
  • Unlimited ad-free access to website articles
  • Limited offer: Subscribe today and get digital edition access for free (accessible with up to 3 devices)

TRY FREE FOR 14 DAYS
See details
See details