The supreme's court overturned Miranda conviction in a 5 to 4 decision.
The decision then remains what it was when appealed to the Supreme Court.
It established the authority of the Supreme Court to rule on the constitutionality of an act of Congress. That is, it resolved that the Supreme Court is the final authority when determining whether a law is Constitutional or not.
other courts use the decision as a guideline when they rule on similar cases
It established the authority of the Supreme Court to rule on the constitutionality of an act of Congress. That is, it resolved that the Supreme Court is the final authority when determining whether a law is Constitutional or not.
The Court's decision in Marbury v. Madison, issued in 1803, established this principle by ruling a section of the Judiciary Act of 1789 unconstitutional
It established the authority of the Supreme Court to rule on the constitutionality of an act of Congress. That is, it resolved that the Supreme Court is the final authority when determining whether a law is Constitutional or not.
Marbury v. Madison
The Supreme Court determines what contradicts the Constitution. So it supposedly isn't possible for them to rule against it. If people don't like the decision of the Supreme Court, they can pass laws and/or amend the Constitution to change it. Congress would be who would overrule it, particularly members who were there when they passed whatever law. The Court is not allowed to put words in the mouth of Congress.
(Supreme Court)
If by "ideology" you mean a belief in "The Rule of Law," yes. However, taken in any other context, no moreso than in any other decision made by the Supreme Court in strengthening defendants rights.
No
It was a concept of judicial review. In other words the supreme court have the authority to review other branches of court and decide whether or not the cases are unconstitutional.