I reject stare decisis in whole, period.
The argument for it pretends to sound like with stare decisis the courts are protecting something that must not be changed - the law as it has become known and understood (they refer to this saying it “promotes the evenhanded, predictable, and consistent development of legal principles, fosters reliance on judicial decisions, and contributes to the actual and perceived integrity of the judicial process.”.
Yet Congress changes laws all the time, and when it does some ox that was not gored in the past can get gored under the new law, and some ox that was not spared under the old law can be spared under the new law. The jurists must then think that makes the law not “evenhanded”, not “predictable”, alters “legal principles”. Yet, where in the Constitution does it say, that preserving in stone, prior passed laws, or prior court decisions, is necessary for the sake of the Constitution or the nation.
As for something that “fosters reliance on judicial decisions”, and “contributes to the actual and perceived integrity of the judicial process”, those are things where the justices are merely trying to protect their own reputation, not JUSTICE. And quite factually it is not really their own reputation but the reputations of justices that went before them, some of whom do not deserve to have their reputations honored and preserved.
We have Constitution meant to be applied as if in stone, except wherein We The People have revised it.
But that template, the Constitution, was not intended to preserve what any one Congress has ever legislated nor what any Supreme Court has ever ruled. All acts of Congress and all court decisions are mutable, only the Constitution is not.
It is NOT a good idea to take Stare Decisis as absolutely sacrosanct.
Courts have been wrong in the past. Therefore following past decisions blindly will only compound the wrong.