Question

Based on the infographic and your knowledge of the Supreme Court, which of the following statements could be considered an accurate conclusion?

A. Ideological changes in the supreme court can lead to the court rejecting existing precedents.
B. The supreme court never overturns existing precedents for fear of undermining the legitimacy of the court.
C. presidents often seek to maintain ideological balance on the supreme court when appointing new justices.
D. presidents nominate supreme court justices with the hope that those justices will strike down existing precedents.

Answer 1

Ideological changes in the Supreme Court can lead to the rejection of existing precedents. Presidents nominate justices based on their own ideologies, impacting the Court's decisions, even though justices' rulings can be unpredictable and not solely based on public opinion.

Step-by-step explanation:

The correct answer to the student's question is that ideological changes in the Supreme Court can lead to the court rejecting existing precedents. This is because justices' personal beliefs and political attitudes can influence their decision-making. Presidents tend to nominate justices that reflect their own ideological leanings for lifetime appointments, significantly impacting the Court's composition and its decisions. Notably, justices strategically plan their decisions for the long term and consider the institution's support when ruling; however, they do not rule solely based on public opinion.

While presidents might hope that their nominees will support particular ideologies, Supreme Court justices are known to rule in unpredictable ways. Historical examples include justices appointed by presidents of one political persuasion who later made rulings aligned with a different ideology. Moreover, the Supreme Court is conscious of its role and often works to maintain a balance within the governmental structure, rather than acting provocatively towards the legislative branch.

It is also important to acknowledge that although there is a strong legal doctrine of stare decisis, which encourages courts to follow established precedents, there is also flexibility that allows new precedents to be set, especially as societal norms and the composition of the courts change over time.