I have no problem with someone taking issue with a specific instance of overturning precedent, or the logic used to do so. But I don't think it's correct to say this never happens or ignores the process. We could look to a myriad of rulings related to slavery, Jim Crow, segregation, etc in which courts previously ruled on flawed precedent that was later overturned (although many bills were also used to help those changes along). It's rare, but it's a type of action that still exists within the overall legal process. I didn't realize the court held constitutional decisions as easier to overturn than statutory ones.

https://theconversation.com/the-supreme-court-has-overturned...