[CondorFlight]

If we wanted to enshrine stare decisis then Plessy vs. Fergussen ("separate but equal schools are OK for the races"--i.e., meaning segregated schooling) should have been upheld, and Brown vs. Board of Education was wrongly decided.

Likewise, Dread Scott (black inhabitants of the USA are
not citizens, and cannot become citizens; and slavery
means ownership of the individual, and not just ownership of his labor) should still be the law of the land.

However, SCOTUS does reverse itself from time to time (proving it is not infallible. . .)

[Redbob]

Uhhh, that would be "Dred Scott" as in "Dred Scott v Stanford," and if Stare Decisis is to become the latest amendment to the Constitution, well, let's revisit Dred Scott!

Or, let the Dims STFU!

[curiosity]

Actually, Dread Scott was never overturned by any court. It was rendered moot by the 13th Amendment.

[El Gato]

Likewise, Dread Scott (black inhabitants of the USA are not citizens, and cannot become citizens; and slavery means ownership of the individual, and not just ownership of his labor) should still be the law of the land.

Well no, that one was overturned the only way the meaning of the Constitution can be changed, by the amendment process. Amendments 13 and 14. Strangely though, other decisions that would seem to be overturned by the 14th amendment are still considered "good law", especially when it comes to applying the immunities protected by the second amendment to state actions.

[Jim Noble]

Likewise, Dread Scott (black inhabitants of the USA are not citizens, and cannot become citizens; and slavery means ownership of the individual, and not just ownership of his labor) should still be the law of the land. However, SCOTUS does reverse itself from time to time (proving it is not infallible. . .)

In general, you're right, but Dred Scott v. Sandford was reversed at Gettysburg, and not by the US Supreme Court.