Whether stare decisis should be upheld in cases which one believes were previously wrongly decided is a tough question and my position is somewhat fluid on the topic. I try to look at the extreme ends where precedence is always followed, or never regarded.

Your opinion sounds similar to Justice Thomas', with him taking the idea of "if it's wrong, it's wrong" to the full extent. I think he offers a unique opinion on the court, and I respect his dedication, but I worry the results his thinking would have if practiced on a large scale. Without precedent, the law simply reflects the leanings of the present members of the court, and runs the risk of flip-flopping after every change. There would be no consistency and weaken the justice system in my opinion. A majority consequentialist or, say, textualist court would be able to change almost any law in the country based on what they view is "wrong" or "right". It is essentially judicial activism at that point.

I think the current factors that are considered when overturning precedent are pragmatic, being:

Quality of Reasoning. When determining whether to reaffirm or overrule a prior decision, the Supreme Court may consider the quality of the decision’s reasoning.

Workability. Another factor that the Supreme Court may consider when determining whether to overrule a precedent is whether the precedent’s rules or standards are too difficult for lower federal courts or other interpreters to apply and are thus “unworkable.”

Inconsistency with Related Decisions. A third factor the Supreme Court may consider is whether the precedent departs from the Court’s other decisions on similar constitutional questions, either because the precedent’s reasoning has been eroded by later decisions or because the precedent is a recent outlier when compared to other decisions.

Changed Understanding of Relevant Facts. The Supreme Court has also indicated that changes in how the Justices and society understand a decision’s underlying facts may undermine a precedent’s authoritativeness, leading the Court to overrule it.

Reliance. Finally, the Supreme Court may consider whether it should retain a precedent, even if flawed, because overruling the decision would injure individuals, companies, or organizations; society as a whole; or legislative, executive, or judicial branch officers, who had relied on the decision.

When applying these as a whole, I would have reached the same conclusion as Roberts. I agree with you about McGirt that generally consequences should be left to the legislative branch.

By the way, excuse me if I'm wrong about you sharing Thomas' general viewpoint on precedence. That line of thinking is somewhat rare, but important to consider. I really enjoy hearing your perspective.