Why can such powerful stances be resolved with a 5-4 ending position? Literally one person makes the difference. You'd think for such a far-reaching situation, a resolution would require at least a 2-person majority to pass.
As for stare decisis, the Supreme Court often deals with cases for which there is no precedent. Isn't that precisely the type of case we're dealing with here?
There are no cases in which there is no precedent. It may be a new technology, or a new law, or a new amendment, but there is never an utter lack of precedent. In this case, I used stare decisis to mean that the court should choose to let the decision stand and not overrule the lower court.