If rules and laws were applied in the manner that you insist, there would be little consistency because cases could be decided differently even when the material facts were similar. At their best, judges are consistent, applying the law to similar effect in similar cases. At their worst, judges decide cases based on who they want to win, which is the way most people view court cases.
All of that is fine, but keep something in mind. Beginning around 1900, SCOTUS and the feds began to ignore constitutional precedent and gradually changed the entire federal judiciary and rationale from supporting individual interests to “the public interest” (AKA government) with decisions usually not based on sound constitutional rationale .
Now, of course, the Left is all about “precedent” but if you dig deep enough you’ll find much of the Left’s “precedent” overturned previous precedent usually without a peep of constitutional rationale.
As far as valid precedent goes, it should be constitutional. If a case with the same questions of law and facts arises, then constitutional precedent is valid and has authority. There are not many of those animals left. To reach those kinds of decisions, you would have to leapfrog past the heretical post-1900 decisions and reach back for a valid constitutionally-based decision if there was one.
To right our listing judicial ship, there would need to be radical departure from unconstitutional precedent to sound constitutionally-based precedent. That would be a “new” beginning of valid, constitutionally-based consistency and reliability in the federal judiciary.
Remember, the Constitution as written and originally understood and intended trumps the feds including unconstitutional “precedent” (US Const, Art VI, Cl. 2 - must be “in pursuance” of the Constitution). How many don’t get that. Also remember, this is basically how America ran the ship until around 1900. It sailed very well. She needs a relaunch.