You don't really believe that. You'd want every case to be a case of first impression? The law would be completely unpredictable. Heck, even the admissibility of evidence would be unknown.
"To abide or adhere to decided cases. It is a general maxim that when a point has been settled by decision, it forms a precedent which is not afterwards to be departed from. The doctrine of stare decisis is not always to be relied upon, for the courts find it necessary to overrule cases which have been hastily decided, or contrary to principle. Many hundreds of such overruled cases may be found in the American and English books of reports."
The real issue is Roe v Wade, is it not? They threw this out at Roberts, too, and he answered by-th-book. That particular decision -- and many others in the SCOTUS -- was arrived at using 'faulty law' or, rather, law applied using faulty method, if I may paraphrase Mr. Roberts.
That is why I qualified my opposition to stare decisis by saying that case law grounded in the Constitution should be relied upon. But precedent in which the Constitution was clearly used as a pretext should not be followed, no matter how many times it has been reaffirmed, how much time has passed, or degree of liberty reliance involved.
Having been forced to further explain my position, I am now convinced that my blanket rejection of stare decisis was too far sweeping.