So many people have abused and corrupted stare decisis for unconstitutional purposes that the meaning has been changed and its whole point forgotten.
Its a tool, that has been corrupted by the left.
That said, there are many sources from the federalist papers, to various writings, etc in which a judge can use to answer constitutional questions, most especially, the constitution itself being first and foremost (obviously).
There are cases in which reasonable people reading the Constitution and statutes will disagree as to how they apply to the matter at hand. In cases where several different result would all be reasonable, it is perfectly proper to use precedent to select among them.
Where judges go wrong is in regarding precedent as somehow being superior to the Constitution and statutes. There is only one case where it should be, and that only to a limitted extent: if courts have declared to be an action to be legal, such action should bar the government from prosecuting anyone for performing such action unless or until courts find it to in fact be illegal. The previous finding should not prevent future courts from declaring the action to be illegal, but must preclude any prosecution for people who perform it prior to such declaration.
ping for 2morrow
The USSC's "interpretation" of the Commerce Clause hasn't relied on stare decisis. I like Justice Thomas' opinion in Lopez, from around 1995 I think, that points out that the first 150 years of the court's decisions regarding the Commerce Clause changed completely 50 years ago, around 1935. Judge Alito mentioned this change during the hearings. Another Justice, Breyer I think it was, called Thomas' views "revisionist".