Case Law and Precedent are often wrong. The Constitution is the literal law of the land. But, since you stated that judges are required to follow precedent can you please source that. My understanding was that precedent is something to be considered in the totality of the decision but wasn't legally binding.
Then it seems that you lack understanding, which explains why you are standing upon a faulty position. You might want to start by looking up the difference between binding and persuasive precedents.
The first problem is that people are sitting here expecting judges and the judiciary to operate as a perfect system, as if failure to provide perfect results is evidence of malice by the actors. This is a foolish notion.
The second problem is that people expect the constitution to be perfect and provide perfection, and that any failure by any branch of the government is evidence of malice by the actors. This is also a foolish notion.
The third problem is that people believe that the constitution was written with specific, microscopically accurate, "intentions" or "meanings" and that the founders only ratified the constitution based on the notion that it establish precisely certain political beliefs and persuasions as valid, and that any "interpreting" that does not agree with one's personal views of intentions and interpretations of what the constitution does, should, or means to say is evidence of "activism" by judge's. This, like the above, are foolish notions.
The constitution establishes the Judicial branch as that part of government that will settle all questions of law and equity arising under the constitution and the laws of the United States. "Settling all questions of law" is nothing more than a fancy way of saying that the Judicial branch is given the duty of interpreting the laws and constitution when the questions are put before it.
The constitution is noticeably, and importantly, silent on creating a mode of court systems. Instead, the constitution merely establishes that courts will exist. Our common law system predates the constitution. The founders recognized that in designating a Judicial branch to possess certain powers and duties of government, those courts would operate in those ways that they've always been understood to operate. That included honoring precedent, upholding
stare decisis, judicial review and the nullification of unconstitutional laws, etc. These were things that the founders understood to be within the scope of normal and necessary judicial power. The founders did not excise these from what constituted the "judicial power of the united States." Instead, the constitution grants these powers to the Judicial branch.
To say that "case law and precedent can be wrong" is, at best, a very clumsy thing to say. Yes, a court's decision can be wrong. And that is why we have levels of appellate courts. But to disregard the importance and necessity of stare decisis shows a horrible ignorance and a juvenile foolishness. The judicial power, granted by the constitution to the courts, is THE POWER TO DECIDE QUESTIONS OF LAW. In that sense, case law CANNOT be wrong, strictly speaking. The power was granted to the court, which make the decision, and therefore correct if we strictly follow the words of the constitution. It is through the appellate process by which a court's decision can be overturned. That, then, yields to a new problem. One circuit's appellate court could answer the question one way, while the same question can come to a different circuit who answers the question another way. Or, the Supreme court could answer the question one way, and a different way next week, or next year, or next century. How, then, does the constitution maintain any relevance and consistency? The answer to that is established in two hundred years of case law and precedent, consistent with the judicial powers of a common law system that existed prior to the constitution, and which the constitution understood to exist when granting judicial power to the Judicial branch. The very case law and precedent you decry is exactly what protects us from flippant application of the law, from judicial activism that would allow a judge to throw you in jail just because he doesn't like your hair color and would allow you no recourse, from a complete lack of consistency or rationality within the application of our laws, which would allow the rest of government nearly unfettered ability to abuse and infringe upon the people.
Bravo!
