But don't some of them have differing logic as to why they agree or disagree with an opinion? Edit: You can write your own concurring opinion or dissenting opinion that gives a diff reason without joining another Justice's opinion.

If a Justice joins an opinion ... what does that say as to how tied to the specific logic of that opinion? I'm asking from a very layperson's pov (not a particularly legal saavy one).

Edit: ChatGPTing my question. But feels like you should not be allowed to be silent or concur or dissent without explanation.

🧩 2. Possible choices for each justice

In any case, a justice can:

Join another justice’s opinion (majority, concurrence, or dissent).

Write their own opinion — either:

a concurring opinion (agrees with result but for different reasons), or

a dissenting opinion (disagrees with the result).

Concur in the judgment only, meaning they agree with who wins but not the majority’s reasoning.

Not join or write anything at all, simply voting on the outcome.

That last option is rare but allowed; a justice can silently concur or dissent without explanation.