"to stand by things [already] decided".
precedent
More recent decision carry considerably more weight than earlier decisions.
A more recent decision can promulgate a newer legal theory that comes to replace a prior theory stated or implied in earlier precdents.
An example of changing legal theory:
Buck-Bell (1927) was decided at a time when DueProcess meant procedural process alone.
Lochner-NewYork (1905) introduced SubstantiveDueProcess to maintain that the "right to contract" was included in the 14th amendment DueProcess clause.
Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization (2022)
Alito majority identified factors that should be considered in deciding when a precedent should be overruled:

  1. the nature of the Court’s error. Pp. 43–45.
  2. the quality of the reasoning. Pp. 45–56.
  3. workability. Pp. 56–62.
  4. effect on other areas of law. Pp. 62–63.
  5. reliance interests. Pp. 63–66.
Dissent identifed (page 31) factors that should be considered in deciding when a precedent should be overruled:
  1. a change in legal doctrine that undermined or made obsolete the earlier decision; page 37
  2. a factual change that had the same effect; or (page 38)
  3. an absence of reliance because the earlier decision was less than a decade old. page 47
In Thomas' concurrence to Gamble v. United States (2019) (PDF), he expresses his view of stare decisis page 35 - 51.
Ramos v. Louisiana (2020) Gorsuch identified ...
Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey (1992) Souter discussion of stare decisis