It is. But as Abigail and Stephan Thernstrom reported in America in Black and White, Clinton aides, Christopher Edley (now a Harvard Law professor) and Geroge Stephanopolous, drew up a policy of violating the USSC decision (I think the case was Adarand v. Pena). And while Bush doesn't go out of his way to violate USSC decisions, he also doesn't do anything to ensure that the Constitution is respected. After the mau-mauing he endured in the attempted Gore coup in 2000, he has bent over for black racists.
"Remaining true to an 'intrinsically sounder' doctrine established in prior cases better serves the values of Stare Decisis than would following a more recently decided case inconsistent with the decisions that came before it; the latter course would simply compound the recent error, and would likely make the unjustified break from previously established doctrine complete. In such a situation, 'special justification' exists to depart from the recently decided case."
What that meant was that judges and lawyers must refer to earlier cases even if it means going back to the Law and the Constitution. They need to be objective about their decisions based on the Law of the land. This also means that what the judge says is not always in effect if it is in conflict with the Founders intent of the Constitution. The problem today is most lawyers are unschooled in the Law of the Constitution. They have been schooled in courts of equity and commerce which is in conflict with the Law of this land. This also applies to the judges. So when it comes to the judges or lawyers, whether government or private, most of them are ignorant as hell. I'm also saying that 90% of judges and lawyers are incompetent when it comes to the original intent of what our Founders had for our freedom.