In every other area of the law I would agree. But in constitutional law, stare decisis should be irrelevant. Each justice is charged with upholding and defending the constitution. Each time a new issue is brought up or an old issue is revisited it should be examined with new eyes and with a dedication to instituting the intent of the drafters of the Constitution. Reliance on stare decisis is tantamount to shirking their duty as justices. Their duty is to interpret the constitution as they see it not as William O Douglas or William Brennan saw it. It is a sworn duty and it is a non-delagable duty. They cannot delegate that responsibility to dead men who were wrong in the past simply because of a respect for stare decisis.
STARE DECISIS IS NOT WRITTEN INTO THE CONSTITUTION. IT CANNOT BE USED TO INTERPRET THE DOCUMENT. THE ONLY THING THAT THE JUSTICES CAN CONSIDER IS THE CONSTITUTION ITSELF!!!!!