The whole idea of the court is to be above public opinion. This is not the first time in history that the court has made sweeping overturns of previous precede

The whole idea of the court is to be above public opinion. This is not the first time in history that the court has made sweeping overturns of previous precedent that large swaths of voters disagreed with. It's also not the first time the legitimacy of those rulings has been challenged. Remember Eisenhower sending the 101st Airborne and federalizing the Arkansas National Guard to enforce integration? Or Kennedy doing similar for Alabama? Those actions were enforcement of a controversial SCOTUS ruling against the local public opinion. And you can say "yeah but racists were the bad guys", but that's not how any of this works, regardless of what narratives we decide to apply to history after the fact. Did the court's lack of perceived legitimacy in Birmingham or Little Rock (among many other places that required less extreme enforcement) cause it to fail as an institution? The court only fails as an institution when it's decisions are no longer enforced. Last I checked we haven't reached that point yet. And even if we do, worth remembering SCOTUS survived the last civil war intact.