Final answer:
In an ED award decision, a court must provide a well-reasoned opinion linked to legal precedents and mindful of future implications, with a clear majority supporting the decision. The opinion should reflect considerations of legitimacy, rule of law, and jurisprudence, while internal limitations and Rule 10 for writ of certiorari are also critical in the decision-making process.
Step-by-step explanation:
In deciding an Equitable Distribution (ED) award, a court must articulate a factually detailed and legally grounded opinion. This includes stating a strong opinion, relating the decision to the applicable legal precedents, and considering the consequences of judicial decisions on future cases. A clear majority must support the decision, with at least five of the nine justices agreeing in the case of the Supreme Court. Dissenting and concurring opinions contribute to legal discourse by highlighting alternative viewpoints, which may shape future legal interpretations or lead to the overturning of precedent. Courts also have internal limitations, such as the need for a legitimate controversy and adversaries, for their power to be exercised.
Moreover, in regards to decisions about the writ of certiorari, the Supreme Court's Rule 10 is critical, taking into account conflicts between lower courts or conflicts with established precedent as a factor for granting cert. Judges must not show bias or indicate their opinions prematurely while the case is ongoing; this is essential for maintaining judicial propriety and the legitimacy of the Court. Overall, each court opinion contributes to the jurisprudential landscape, guiding future decisions while embodying the delicate balance between legal reasoning and the evolving nature of societal norms, especially in the context of new challenges like internet expression.