Final answer:
Influential rulings by the Supreme Court affect lower court decisions, with factors like legal constraints, ideologies, and public opinion playing a role in their decision-making. Precedents guide decisions but do not eliminate the possibility of new rulings, especially as society's values evolve.
Step-by-step explanation:
The justice's influential ruling in a case is a decision that sets a precedent or a legal example that lower courts often refer to when making their own rulings in similar cases. The Supreme Court and its justices are influenced by a variety of factors, including legal constraints, personal ideologies, and political pressures.
While the judiciary is often seen as separate from politics, the reality is that public opinion and other external influences can play a role in the Court's decisions.
The concept of stare decisis stipulates that cases with similar facts should generally be decided in the same way, based on established precedents, though there is flexibility for the Court to issue new rulings as times change or as the Court's composition changes. Precedents, therefore, do not solely dictate judicial decisions; justices may interpret them to align with their preferred outcomes or justify new policy choices.
For instance, court rulings, such as the transition from Plessey v. Ferguson to Brown v. Board of Education, showcase how shifts in public opinion and changes in the Court's membership can lead to significant legal and social transformation. Precedents are essential, but they do not completely bind the Court, allowing it to adapt to current societal values and maintain relevance.