That's fine when the precedent reflects the customary local practices for dealing with disputes and crime, but not when judges "make up" laws out of thin air.
As I said, it is a power issue. Courts claim that they are following statute and Constitutional law, and are not rogue, ignoring a reasonable interpretation of saem. When they are rogue, in the eye of the beholder, the remedy is a new statute of amended Constitution, or a new court. The issue is about the relative power of the Courts and the legilature, and whether giving courts the power to create "law," until reversed by new statutes or an amended Constitution, is worth the cost of uncertainty in particular fact patterns, and inconsistent legal results. This is the most controversial of course, when it comes to Constitutional issues, since it is very difficult to amend the Constitution, in the US. But without an independent judicial branch, parsing its meaning, with the force of law, that document would become a largely dead letter, in the sense that it would have not much more force and effect than a mere statute, and would apply differently per different courts, and in different jurisdictions.