Question

question 2 of 10
if a supreme court justice were to argue using a precedent, what might he or she do?

a. practice making judgments on cases that are different from the current case

b. present views that oppose his or her own in order to show all possible outcomes

c. research decisions that were made in lower courts on the same case

d. cite other cases that came to similar conclusions

Explanation:

A legal precedent refers to a prior court decision that serves as a guide for judging similar current cases. Using precedent involves referencing past cases with comparable facts and conclusions to support a legal argument. Option A is incorrect as precedent focuses on similar, not different, cases. Option B is unrelated to precedent, as it describes considering opposing views. Option C is about lower court decisions on the same case, not precedent (which uses separate, similar prior cases). Option D aligns with the definition of using precedent.

Answer:

D. Cite other cases that came to similar conclusions