Final answer:
The most accurate statement about stare decisis is that judges must abide by precedent unless there is a clear reason to distinguish the current case from its predecessors. This provides legal consistency and allows for change when justified. The Supreme Court interprets laws, not through scheduled reviews, but as cases come before it.
Step-by-step explanation:
The most accurate statement about the doctrine of stare decisis is that judges must abide by the precedent of earlier cases unless there is a clear reason to distinguish the current case from its predecessors. Option d encapsulates this principle well. Stare decisis ensures that the law remains consistent over time, which is fundamental in a common law system like that of the United States. By following precedent, the courts uphold the stability and predictability of the law, something that both judges and citizens alike depend on.
It is important to note that stare decisis does not completely eliminate the possibility of legal change; it simply dictates that change should come with justification, often when there are significant changes in society or legal understanding. For instance, in landmark Supreme Court cases such as Brown v. Board of Education, precedent was overturned to correct previous injustices.
Additionally, while the Supreme Court is engaged in the process of judicial review, it does not conduct this through 'regularly scheduled reviews of case law', so option e is not accurate. The Supreme Court's role is to interpret the law and Constitution and apply those interpretations to cases presented before it.