QUESTION $11$

In a case before the US Supreme Court, the lawyer for the State of Oklabama $($a fictional state in the US$)$ has argued that a prior US Supreme Court decision sets a precedent that is controlling in the present case. If a majority of the justices hearing the case believe that the prior case no longer has rational application to modern society, what course of action may the justices take in deciding the present case?

a$.$ The concept of stare decisis means that the justices may reject the ruling of the prior case, but may face removal from the bench as a result.

b$.$ The justices must petition Congress for authority to overrule the prior case.

c$.$ Under the concept of stare decisis, the justices have no choice but to follow the ruling of the prior case

d$.$ The concept of stare decisis allows the justices to legitimately make a ruling that does not follow the prior case because it is no longer relevant.

e$.$ The justices may invoke the "Roberts Rule" of disregarding precedent, but without setting a precedent of being able to disregard precedent.