Final answer:
A dissenting opinion is authored by a justice who disagrees with the majority's rationale but not necessarily the outcome, while a concurring opinion agrees with the outcome but for different reasons.
Step-by-step explanation:
A dissenting opinion is written by a justice who disagrees with the rationale of the majority opinion of the Court, even if they agree with the verdict. Justices in the minority write dissenting opinions to express their different viewpoints and legal reasoning. These opinions are vital as they can shape future legal arguments and sometimes lead to overruling past decisions. Moreover, a concurring opinion is authored by a justice who agrees with the majority's verdict but has different reasons or legal principles guiding their concurrence.
Justices on the Supreme Court, or any appellate court, must base their rulings on the Constitution, statutes, and prior case law, sometimes generating divided opinions reflecting distinct interpretations of the law. Their written opinions, whether majority, dissenting, or concurring, set precedents that guide future cases. Furthermore, their opinions are not influenced solely by personal ideology since each case is considered on its merits, and the justices are influenced by detailed research, often supported by their clerks.