Two words - 14th amendment.
The part of the Dred Scott decision that actually affected the person, Dred Scott, was constitutionally sound. Under the constitution (due to compromise to ensure ratification), slaves were treated differently and individual states have never had the power to grant citizenship.
What makes the Dred Scott decision so notable is Taney's idiotic decision to editorialize and say that blacks were inferior to white and so forth. Apparently he had hopes that this would end the slavery debate once and for all.
My point is stare decisis is only as important as the supremes want it to be.
Stare decisis bites the dust when they decide to overturn a case after making some pretext in the opinion to distinguish the new case from the old case they don’t like anymore. It is a pathetic legal game that is played to justify fixing their own mistakes. As important as stare decisis is, it would be refreshing to read a decision where they said “we screwed up” - but that will never happen.
My point is stare decisis is only as important as the supremes want it to be.
Stare decisis bites the dust when they decide to overturn a case after making some pretext in the opinion to distinguish the new case from the old case they don’t like anymore. It is a pathetic legal game that is played to justify fixing their own mistakes. As important as stare decisis is, it would be refreshing to read a decision where they said “we screwed up” - but that will never happen.