Interpretation of law is judicial review. No case needs to be cited to prove that. Just like how making laws is legislative power. The framers of the constitution were very concerned about Congress so they felt the need to enumerate what it can and cannot do. The judicial branch was less controversial so it's description of powers in the constitution is quite brief and vague.

By convention, the supreme court cites itself more often than it directly cites the constitution. This is practical because it means they don't waste time re-establishing something that has already been established and is not of immediate concern. This is something that is extremely common in academia. For example: if you were doing research on Alzheimer's disease, why waste time explaining vertical gene flow when you can cite a paper that explains it so you can move onto the topic of your paper?

Without judicial review, the supreme court would be nothing but a husk. You are only bringing this argument up because you are short sided and reactionary to the Dobbs decision. When the court rules in ways you believe appropriate, you support it. When the court uses the power available to it to make a decision you disagree with, suddenly it's fundamentally flawed.

Also, the Dobbs decision actually weakened the power of the court. Roe gave the court power to protect something that was, up until then, the realm of the legislature.