It's a little different when talking about statutory law, because Congress can change it at any time if the court gets it wrong. Constitutional law is a whole different ballgame, because it's not meant to be constantly amended. It's meant to provide a stable framework, and so if stare decisis becomes too dominating a factor, it effectively means that the courts have the power to change it on their own, and that undermines stability, rather than promotes it.
I think during John Roberts's hearings he said that stare decisis is more applicable in the context of statutory interpretation and less applicable in the context of constitutional law.
Although initially this analysis seemed backward I now understand its logic and agree with it.
He was saying that if the court imposes an interpretation on a statute that is wrong, then all Congress has to do is correct it through legislation. However, if the court imposes an interpretation on a constitutional provision that is wrong, this can only be corrected by amendment to the constitution!
Therefore, according to that line of reasoning, the court should be more concerned with accurate interpretation of the constitution and less concerned with the predictability inherent in a settled matter.