The Judiciary generally holds the power to interpret the law based on the legislative intent. However, some of their judgments may be counter-intuitive, if not contrary to the clear and unmistakable wording of the law. Of course, we cannot deny that judges have their own personal biases, which become more obvious when confronted with constitutional cases that are often philosophical. Sometimes, the prevailing political agenda may also influence the way judges ought to decide on a case. What, then, can be a plausible justification for the unpredictable deviations of judges from their earlier decisions?
And, most importantly, how can the discipline of law maintain its objectivity if the courts, from which binding precedents come, are sometimes subjective? What if, for example, the Supreme Court made a binding judgment based on faulty legal interpretations? How can law professors convince their students that laws have objective interpretations if they, too, are required to abide by the erroneous Supreme Court ruling?