Final answer:
The statement that judicial decisions rarely affect health policy is false. Judges influence policy through their rulings and interpretations of the law, and the Supreme Court has notably affected policy on matters including elections and health care.
Step-by-step explanation:
The assertion that judicial decisions rarely affect health policy because judges cannot write new laws is false. Judges play a crucial role in shaping public policy through their interpretations of the law and precedents. For example, the Supreme Court has had a significant impact on elections with its "one person, one vote" standard and the upholding of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA). Whilst it is true judges do not create laws in the same sense as the legislative branch, their rulings on the constitutionality and interpretation of those laws can have profound effects on policy, including health policy.
Moreover, the concept of stare decisis shows the courts' decisions can establish long-lasting legal doctrines and principles. Changes in court interpretations often reflect shifts in social and political climates, which can lead to new legal precedents, further influencing policymaking. Despite the judicial branch's reliance on the other government branches to implement and enforce its decisions, history has shown that judicial rulings are critical in defining the scope and application of laws, thereby shaping policy outcomes in significant ways.
Lastly, while some believe in judicial restraint, advocating for minimal judicial intervention in policymaking, it is undeniable that the judiciary's role as interpreters of the Constitution inherently involves them in the making and shaping of policy.