Final answer:
Stare decisis is a legal principle that guides justices to follow past Supreme Court decisions for consistency, while judicial activism allows justices to broadly interpret the Constitution to champion individual rights and liberties. Judicial restraint opposes this approach, favoring a narrower interpretation and deferral to legislative bodies. These dynamics can shift with time, public opinion, and institutional considerations.
Step-by-step explanation:
The concept of stare decisis ensures that justices adhere to precedents set by previous Supreme Court decisions, providing consistency and stability in law. Justices influenced by judicial activism may interpret the Constitution more broadly to defend individual rights and liberties, potentially striking down laws and policies that they view as violating these principles. On the other hand, proponents of judicial restraint are less inclined to declare actions unconstitutional and more disposed to defer to elected government branches for policymaking, focusing on a narrower interpretation of the Bill of Rights.
However, this adherence is not absolute and can evolve, as seen with landmark shifts in case law, such as the transition from Plessey v. Ferguson to Brown v. Board of Education. Additionally, public opinion can informally influence judicial decisions, but justices strategically consider the long-term reputation and support for the institution in their rulings.