Final answer:
Judges refer to past legal decisions, known as precedents, to inform their rulings in new cases, maintaining legal consistency through the doctrine of stare decisis. While adherence to precedent is common, there is room for new precedents, and judges also interpret the Constitution to guide their decisions.
Step-by-step explanation:
Judges have the responsibility of examining prior decisions and legal precedents when they deliberate on new cases. This process is underpinned by the doctrine of stare decisis, which is Latin for "stand by the decision." It ensures that current judgments are consistent with past rulings, offering stability and predictability to the legal system.
When cases share similar legal facts, stare decisis compels judges to arrive at similar decisions, unless there is substantial justification for deviating from precedent. Despite this, judges do exercise a degree of flexibility, and new precedents are established, especially when interpretations adapt to societal changes or in response to shifts in the court's composition.
Precedents carry weight, but they are not infallible; studies suggest justices interpret precedent to align with their preferred outcomes. However, precedents majorly contribute to the consistency and legitimacy of the judicial system by maintaining a standard of even-handed justice that the public can rely on. Judges also take into account the Constitution and federal statutes in their decision-making, with the duty to uphold the law sometimes outweighing personal policy preferences.
Legal precedents created by courts play a crucial role in guiding future judicial decisions. This is shown in cases where broad constitutional principles, like those in the First Amendment, require interpretation. Judges use existing precedents to understand how these principles have been applied previously, which then informs their judgments in new cases.