I'm hearing a lot of "my-side likes this, therefore changing it is wrong." Liberals think it's the highest expression of the beauty of our republic when precedent is overturned to take things in a more liberal direction; but when precedent is overturned to take things in a different direction, it's an unjust violation of stare decisis.
Properly understood, the courts are a ratchet that move things from less liberal to more liberal. To go the other way is evidence of inexcusable corruption and a threat to democracy itself, warranting urgent an extreme action to save society.
So we live in interesting times. Great.
Don't act like complaints about the courts are just liberal tantrums.
They're not usually so much tantrums as biased, hypocritical argumentation developed backwards to arrive at the politically desired result.
If you're being a jerk, and I'm commenting on your behavior, I'm not making any kind of error if I don't mention how Steve was being a jerk two weeks ago. And honestly, insisting that I talk about Steve would be an effort to deny responsibility and distract from your own behavior.
The Roberts court has overturned fewer precedents per term than any court going back to at least the Warren court which began in 1953. If your criteria for evaluating a court is respect for precedent, you should consider the Roberts court to be a candidate for greatest of all time.