It's not the undermining of precedent (for its own sake) that matters here. It's the contents of the precedent that are presumably bothersome to the upthread poster. Comparisons to precedents overturned in the name of progress are entirely reasonable to examine whether its the matter of precedents in general or specific contents that are issue.
That’s the bad faith part. This has nothing to do with precedence and the current Supreme Court will do what it wants and invent new and incoherent forms of logic as needed to do so.