[c0g]

The law is more predictable when it follows precedent, which is good since people know what it is. Precedent can be overturned in cases where the facts are different (including when things have changed over time), and the legislature can obviously make new laws.

Being bound by precedent is one thing that stops every court from legislating their own interpretation of unclear laws - it makes sure everyone at least gets the same law.

[whatshisface]

Precedent should speak over the individual whims of judges, but not over the law. If you have a convincing argument that the law says a certain thing, regardless of whether or not that argument was discovered the last time around that's how you should rule. The consistency of rulings and the law is more important than consistency between one ruling and another. Orthogonally, it is also the case that precedent is more important than the individual political will fulfillment of judges. The two statements don't contradict at all.

[torstenvl]

Precedent fundamentally is the law.

[whatshisface]

Should a new law passed by Congress be able to overturn judical precedent? If yes, the law takes priority over precedent.

[torstenvl]

Your question doesn't make sense as stated, as you're conflating two different concepts (a statute vs. the law) and being overly broad in your reference to precedent.

Congress can't pass a statute, for example, that criminalizes oral and anal sex, and expect it to somehow overrule Lawrence v. Texas.

However, if the courts interpret a statute that Congress has passed in a way that Congress does not care for, Congress is free to alter the statute to be more clear.