Final answer:
Judges use precedent to ensure legal consistency but may adapt the law to new circumstances or interpretations. Changes in court composition can lead to new precedents, as judges interpret laws and make policy decisions with lasting effects.
Step-by-step explanation:
Within the legal framework, judges critically rely upon precedent, or prior case law, when making rulings in new cases. The principle known as stare decisis, which means "to stand by things decided" in Latin, requires judges to look at the similarities between the current case at hand and previous cases when applying the rule of law. Essentially, this legal doctrine ensures consistency and stability in the law, fostering a system where litigants can have greater certainty about legal proceedings. While precedents play a crucial role in guiding decisions, they are not absolute. Judges may adapt or evolve legal interpretations based on changing times, societal attitudes, or shifts within the courts themselves, as seen in landmark shifts from the precedent set in Plessy v. Ferguson to the ruling in Brown v. Board of Education. It's also worth noting that judges may interpret precedent to align more closely with their own perspectives or to justify new policy choices.
However, not all cases are clear-cut in how precedent applies. For example, if students wish to use campus facilities for prayer groups, the outcome could depend on whether the case is interpreted under the separation of church and state or as a matter of freedom of speech, both of which have supporting precedents.
Judges as policymakers have the authority to interpret laws and set precedents that significantly affect public policy. An example is the Supreme Court's establishment of electoral rules and guidelines through significant decisions.