Final answer:
Judicial implementation is the process of court decisions becoming practical policy and guiding behavior. The judiciary influences policy through its rulings but lacks enforcement power, relying on the support of other government branches. Judges' decisions are influenced by their adherence to judicial restraint or activism, public opinion, and political conditions.
Step-by-step explanation:
Judicial implementation refers to how and whether court decisions are translated into real policy, affecting the behavior of others. The judicial branch influences policy through its rulings, although unlike the legislative and executive branches, it lacks direct mechanisms for enforcement. Consequently, the Supreme Court requires the support of the other branches for the implementation and enforcement of its decisions. The process of judicial implementation can be delicate, as exhibited in historical instances such as President Andrew Jackson's defiance of the Supreme Court's ruling on Native American lands or Abraham Lincoln's ignoring of Chief Justice Roger B. Taney's decision during the Civil War.
Judges and justices bring their personal and ideological beliefs to the bench, influencing decision-making. Some may adhere to judicial restraint, focusing on a narrow interpretation of laws and deferring to elected branches on policy issues, while others may engage in judicial activism, expanding individual liberties and scrutinizing government actions closely. Case law, formed from judicial opinions, becomes precedents for future rulings. However, these are subject to the influence of public opinion, external pressures, and the political climate.The reliance of the judicial system on external enforcement underscores the interdependent nature of U.S. governance, where checks and balances play a crucial role. Though thought to be secluded from external influences, justices are swayed by a variety of factors, including public opinion and special interest groups.