Why should decisions made by courts yesterday be binding on courts when they make decisions today?

This a question about the procedural elements of law, questioning precedent. First, aim to tackle the assumptions within the question and whether you agree with them.
Assumption number 1: That decisions on courts are binding in reality they are not always binding, higher courts can overrule or distinguish precedents. Evidence: 1966 practice statement,
Assumption number 2: That the decisions should be binding --> use this as an opportunity to present your view. Advantages of precedent: predictability in legal systemEvidence: legal positivist argument (Jon Griffiths Disadvantages: flexibility, ensuring rights are protectedEvidence: R v G
Finally, consider what other types of mechanisms are in place to ensure that even if the decisions were binding, rights would also be safeguarded?Statute Law and parliamentary sovereignty