system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
ELI5: Why can one judge's ruling set a precedent? Isn't that too much power in the hands of one man?

I know it's not as simple as I made it out to be I just wanted to guide the answer in that direction. I hear about precedents being set in certain cases that affect future court room decisions. How does this work so that one judge can't just fuck the system up? 

Sorry if this sounds really dumb. I'm high right now.
gpt
If one judge is making the decision, it's likely to be a trial court decision. Trial court rulings can be appealed, and appeals courts have more judges. At least in the US, trial court rulings also don't set binding precedents; other judges may be *persuaded* by the ruling, but they can ignore it if they are unconvinced (whereas an appeals court binds courts down the appeal chain, and they can't just ignore it).