The article focuses on the benefits of the extended deliberative process and addresses the practice of over-ruling precedent and sustained dissent. It discusses the U.S. Supreme Court case American Tradition Partnership, Inc. v. Bullock and Citizens United v. FECP to explain the role of sustained dissent in judgment. The practice of sustaining one's dissent is become controversial and raises the questions about the nature of stare decisis.
Jon G. Heintz,
Sustained Dissent and the Extended Deliberative Process,
Notre Dame L. Rev.
Available at: http://scholarship.law.nd.edu/ndlr/vol88/iss4/4