So, one day with some idle time on your hands, instead of the
Smithsonian, you picked up your copy of
US v. Darby from the end table in the den and there it was: the US Supreme Court unanimously going off the cliff in 1941, upholding federal wage and hour laws by citing
Gibbons no less for the proposition that: "The power of Congress over interstate commerce 'is complete in itself, may be exercised to its utmost extent, and acknowledges no limitations other than are prescribed in the Constitution.'" The evils of stare decisis were thus revealed to you.
I surmise that somewhere you got support for the notion that stare decisis was wrong, wrong, wrong. I am curious where. As far as I am aware -- and I invite correction -- there is no such adamant hostility to stare decisis in conservative legal scholarship.