IAAL. Sure, they are cited, but their influential power is pretty weak at best.

Imagine you're a judge. If you come to a legal conclusion that directly contradicts a Supreme Court holding by quoting a dissent attached to the opinion instead of the Court's opinion, you're at grave risk of committing legal error and having your decision reversed by a higher court. So no judge in his/her right mind is going to do that.

If that were the case, that "you're at grave risk of committing legal error and having your decision reversed by a higher court" how would any decision be revisited or changed? It would follow that just becasue it's in a dissenting opinion does not mean it's the wrong decision. Stare decisis seems to only exist in textbooks.

Just to add some points to this, Minersville School District v. Gobitis was overturned in favor of the dissenting opinion in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette. Certainly the dissents in Plessy, Dred Scott, and Olmstead to name a few where the dissenting opinion later became the majority. Was it not an attorney that argued those points? They may have risked legal error, but that didn't negate that the argument was correct in the dissent.