Why did the Supreme Court describe Miranda warnings as part of national culture in Dickerson v. United States?

In the 2000 case Dickerson v. United States, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the requirement for Miranda warnings as a constitutional rule that Congress could not legislatively supersede.12

Chief Justice William Rehnquist, writing for the majority, noted that while the Court had previously created various exceptions to the original Miranda ruling, the decision had become deeply integrated into the American legal system over the preceding decades. Rehnquist observed that the warnings had become embedded in routine police practice to such an extent that they were now considered "part of our national culture."2

By invoking the principle of stare decisis—the legal doctrine of adhering to precedent—the Court determined that there was no sufficient justification to overrule the decision, as the warnings had become a standard and widely recognized component of criminal procedure in the United States.12