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.
Exactly, well said!
We can illustrate this even further by looking some more at your example of securities legislation. You noted that predictability is a good thing with regard to this type of legislation. But no court in its right mind strike down an attempt by the legislature to change these laws, on the grounds that it would mess up people's expectations of the law. That's because the acts of a legislative assembly are themselves predictable and can be controlled by appeals to the people.
Applying that logic to constitutional cases, there's no valid reason for refusing to lift an erroneous judicial prohibition against certain types of legislation, because it would still be up to the people to decide whether or not to reinstate the legislation if they decide they want it.