Asklemmy

That just means the law in question is the Constitution, which can also be amended.

The Supreme Court just interprets the laws as “unconstitutional” no matter how clearly laid out they are.

The US Constitution is considered the Supreme Law. If there is a conflict between the Constitution and any State or Federal law, the law in the Constitution wins. And the Constitution can be updated via amendments. We've done this 27 times, though the 18th Amendment was canceled by the 21st Amendment, so those two are a bit of a wash. Part of the Supreme Court's job (kinda made up by the SC itself) is to interpret the law and decide if a conflict exists and how that conflict should be resolved. This is called Judaical Review.

And, this power ultimately makes sense in the context of the US Constitution. Consider for a moment that Congress "clearly laid out" a law which made supporting the other political party illegal (for whatever version of "other political party" strikes your fancy). This sort of law would be incredibly anti-democratic. It's also a pretty clear violation of the First Amendment. But, who gets to decide that? If it's just up to Congress, and they are the ones passing the law, that seems a pretty poor way to adjudicate it. Maybe the President gets to decide. And the President might do just that by vetoing it. But, it's likely that a President is going to sign it, if he's of the same party. That only leaves two options, we all start shooting at each other every time we feel the Constitution has been violated, or the last branch of the Federal Government steps in and makes the call. While certainly not non-partisan, they are somewhat removed from the political process and are more likely to make rational, long-term decisions. And it's a damn sight better than the "shoot each other" option.

In practice, this has held up reasonably well. The main problem is that the early lawmakers in the US were kinda shit at their job. The early Amendments to the US Constitution are vague and leave a lot of room for interpretation. The result is that those interpretations have changed over time and as different factions have gained more influence over the Supreme Court. And given that the Justices on the Supreme Court serve for life (barring impeachment), those shifts can be slow and long lasting.

There is also the issue of implied rights and what exactly those are. Consider everyone's favorite, a "Right to Life". What is it, and where does it exist in the US Constitution? The definition for it is kinda fuzzy in US Federal law partly because it doesn't explicitly exist in the US Constitution. There is the 9th Amendment:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Well great, but um, what are those rights? And who gets to decide? Again, we have to sort out a system for that, and the best we've come up with to date is the Supreme Court. Hardly a perfect solution, but we haven't come up with anything better yet. This is also why a lot of courts look to the writings of the Founders, especially the Federalist Papers. Trying to divine what those "other rights" are is hard and the courts try to base their decisions on some sort of textual evidence or precedent. But again, these interpretations are not universal and are subject to change as both society and the make up of the court changes.

So no, "passing of laws doesn’t matter anymore, and neither does precedent" is incorrect. Passing laws matters, but those laws need to comply with the current interpretation of the Constitution and it's amendments. And precedent matters in so much as the interpretations of the Constitution haven't changed. The issue is that the current make up of the court has a very right-wing view. So, previous precedents (which were more left-wing) are being revoked. That anyone is surprised by this is kinda dumb. In fact The early and mid-20th century saw the Supreme Court taking a much more left-wing interpretation of the Constitution, which was a departure from prior generations. Decisions such as Tennessee v. Scopes (Scopes Monkey Trial) and Roe v. Wade were major departures from previous precedent. Many of us grew up with those decisions in place and took for granted that they were "settled". But, they really weren't. They were Supreme Court decisions which could be reversed by newer Supreme Court decisions.

And while it sucks when that happens to decisions we like, it's also been useful when it's gone the other way. In US v. Cruikshank, the Supreme Court decided that the rights enumerated in the US Constitution did NOT bind the States. Specifically, that States were not bound by the 1st or 2nd Amendments and it also greatly limited the applicability of the 14th Amendment. Ultimately, this precedent would be rolled back by later decisions and Incorporation slowly redefined the relationship between the Federal Constitution and State governments.

Ultimately, law is a messy thing. And it's very much the outcome of a political process which is subject to people of all stripes, including those whose opinions and beliefs will be hostile and toxic to your own. It's a pretty terrible way to decide laws, but it's better than most everything else we've tried in history.