Skip to content

9: Legitimacy of the Judicial Branch

The ideologies and personal beliefs of Supreme Court justices can influence their decision-making, particularly in their willingness to follow or reject precedents. Changes in the Court's composition, due to presidential appointments, can lead to shifts in legal interpretations and the precedents upheld. Nonetheless, the principle of stare decisis remains a pivotal factor in the Court's decisions, ensuring that changes to precedents generally occur gradually.

Key Terms

  • Precedent: A legal decision or set of decisions in earlier, similar cases that serves as a guide for future cases.
  • Stare Decisis: The legal principle advocating for the adherence to precedents to ensure consistency and predictability in law.
  • Overrule: The act of a higher court overturning a decision made by a lower court.
  • Ideology: A set of beliefs and principles influencing an individual's perspective and decision-making.
  • Presidential Appointments: The process through which the President nominates individuals to fill federal court vacancies, subject to Senate confirmation.
  • Consistency: The state of being uniform in application or effect.
  • Predictability: The ability to be forecasted or expected with confidence.

The Principle of Stare Decisis

Stare decisis, meaning "to stand by decided matters," is fundamental in legal systems, advocating for courts to follow decisions from similar, earlier cases. This principle promotes legal stability, fairness, and the rule of law by offering guidance and preventing relitigation of resolved issues. Despite its importance, courts can depart from stare decisis when previous decisions are deemed unjust or when new legal challenges emerge.

Courts strive to maintain a balance between the consistency provided by stare decisis and the need to adapt to societal and legal changes. This involves a meticulous process of legal reasoning to decide on adhering to or departing from established precedents, considering various factors including societal values and the law's evolution.

Supreme Court's Authority to Set Precedents

The Supreme Court holds the authority to overrule previous decisions, thus establishing new precedents. While it generally upholds stare decisis to maintain legal consistency, it has made landmark rulings that reflect changes in law or societal values, exemplified by the overturning of Plessy v. Ferguson in Brown v. Board of Education.

Impact of Ideology on Decision-Making

A justice's ideology significantly influences their approach to precedents and stare decisis. Ideological perspectives can determine the weight given to stability versus the need for legal evolution, affecting decisions on whether to uphold or overrule existing precedents.

Effects of Presidential Appointments

Presidential appointments can alter the Supreme Court's ideological balance, influencing its decisions and the precedents it upholds. Changes in the Court's composition can shift its general approach towards either maintaining or revising established legal precedents.

Lower Courts and Conflicting Precedents

Lower courts facing conflicting precedents must prioritize decisions from higher courts within their jurisdiction. They navigate these conflicts by distinguishing case facts or relying on persuasive authority from other jurisdictions, sometimes deferring to higher courts for resolution.

Variations in Stare Decisis Across Jurisdictions

The emphasis on stare decisis varies globally, with common law jurisdictions prioritizing it as a legal cornerstone, while civil law jurisdictions may afford courts more flexibility in revisiting and adapting the law. Exceptions to stare decisis occur when legal or factual errors are identified in previous decisions or when laws have evolved.