Have you stopped to think about the strange overturning of the supposedly established U.S. Supreme Court precedent in the case Brown v. the Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas (1954), by a unanimous vote from the nine very differently minded justices of the Earl Warren Court? That was the first time in the history of the American republic when such an astounding thing was done in the overturning of long-standing judicial precedent, and the only reason for it happening was that each of the nine justices was personally courted by the Chief Justice Earl Warren to view the existing precedent, Plessy v. Ferguson, 1896 as just plain wrong, if not unconstitutional.
You see, the 1896 ruling in Plessy v. Ferguson established in that year by fiat that racial segregation based upon the “separate but equal” doctrine was constitutional; but though it was “constitutional,” it was considered by many jurists as morally wrong, as applied to, and forced upon, the States. Nonetheless, the powers given to the States by the Framers in the 10th Amendment of the Bill of Rights were deliberately meant to be very broad and generalized, while the powers given to the federal government over the States were deliberately intended to be very restricted. There weren't, and there still aren't, any powers given to the federal government in the U.S. Constitution to allow creation of any “social” legislation, or laws governing race relations in, or among, the States. The 14th Amendment's “Equal Protection” clause, of 1865, which was created by a vindictive northern sectional congress and coerced upon the Southern States (formerly the Confederacy) in 1865, is the closest prevailing thing to a “federal power” to legislate social laws and regulations, but does not equivocate, add to, or diminish, the specific federal powers set forth in Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution. Federal law was intended by the Honored Framers to be standardized on the States in accordance with the powers specifically allotted to the federal government by the Constitution, but the States were allowed by the Constitution to be very different in law and aspect in accordance with the 10th Amendment. If an individual did not like a legislation created by a particular State legislature, it was the right of that person to seek change in that law on a state-level from the State legislature, or, either, move to another State where the law was different. Only if the State did not conform to the standardized laws imposed upon all of the States by the federal government according to the powers allotted to the national government by the Constitution, could the federal government impose its federal will on the State in accordance with the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
Perhaps, in 1954, the eight associate justices of the U.S. Supreme Court, both liberal and conservative, were persuaded by Chief Justice Earl Warren that Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) was not true judicial precedent because the “separate but equal” doctrine should not have been imposed upon the States by the federal government. Perhaps Warren might have regarded the Plessy ruling as a matter that should have originally been declared in 1896 as a uniquely State matter, which should not have been tried and adjudicated by a U.S. district court and appealed through federal appellate courts to the U.S. Supreme Court. Yet, Warren was a liberal jurist and a Wilsonian progressive (who wrongly believed that the U.S. Constitution was not written in stone by the Framers, but very changeable) and probably regarded Plessy v. Ferguson as a socially deplorable, if not immoral ruling. Warren also probably believed that the only way that an “immoral” ruling, applied to every State, could be rectified would be by totally disregarding it as precedent. To the liberals seeking judicial activism, the Brown v. Board of Education ruling was a blessing. To most of the conservatives it was a curse and vile mark on the 10th Amendment of the Bill of Rights. Though he didn't do it, Warren could have chosen to get upon a soap-box and declare loudly that, “if the People, or the States, wanted the federal government to have the power to legislate social rules and regulations onto the States, the U.S. Constitution would have to be properly amended to give the federal government that power. I don't know if Earl Warren had come to believe that the 14th Amendment had been improperly, or properly, intended in 1865 to nullify the power of the States under the 10th Amendment of the Bill of Rights. As he had been a liberal advocate of judicial activism and not a vocal advocate of the first ten amendments, I sincerely doubt it. Earl Warren failed to clarify before he died why he assiduously courted the vote of each of the eight associate justices, which culminated in the unanimous decision to overturn Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) and to disregard it as a precedent. I think that the ruling was to Warren an act of judicially supplanting what he thought was evil with a ruling that was questionably constitutional. I, however, don't believe that you can have it both ways. If a U.S. Supreme Court decision, or a legislated congressional law, is basically not constitutional there is no reasonable way to justify the results of its implementation.
Very similarly, the 21st Century John Roberts' Supreme Court, with a current prevailing conservative majority, could, in the very near future, declare with those five conservative votes the evil and immorality of Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), and that it should not have been considered in 1974 as having risen under the laws of the United States or under the U.S. Constitution to be determined by the federal judiciary. Those conservative justices currently have the power to rule that Roe v. Wade should “not” have been originally tried in, and adjudicated by, a U.S. district court and appealed-up to the U.S. Supreme Court; but should have been regarded originally and forever as an exclusively State matter. This is an issue upon which Senator Lindsay Graham focused in his confirmation questioning of, then, Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, when the Senator asked Kavanaugh if the historical precedent of abortion being an exclusively State matter outweighed the legal precedent of Roe v. Wade (1973). At that time, Kavanaugh refused to answer the question properly, and only said that “he would follow precedent.” Historically, however, abortion was an exclusively State issue that was regarded as stringently as was homicide, or the unlawful killing of one human being by another, during the four-hundred-year timespan when the thirteen original States were British colonies. The thirteen original States, formerly colonies, set one standard of defining the unborn as human beings by declaring the murder of a pregnant woman as constituting the unlawful killing of “two-or-more” human beings instead of one under the authority of colonial and State constitutional law, and common law. Whether or not that fetal human being in the womb of a pregnant woman killed by another human being is wanted as a son or daughter by the pregnant woman, or by the man that impregnated her, that human life is, historically, as much a living breathing human being as the pregnant woman. The law cannot be twisted to be ambiguous about this very basic issue. For if the wife of a prominent New York City attorney is pregnant, and is in the ninth-month of gestation with that couple's firstborn son, and the proud mother and father of that child is expecting the child to be delivered on time, the premeditated killing of that woman and child by a felon during the commission of a convenience store robbery constitutes the killing of two human beings, instead of merely one; and that husband/father would, in all probability, seek the death penalty for such a heinous crime This basic principle applies to the intentional killing of “any” normal healthy child in the third, fourth, fifth, or sixth-month of gestation through the abortion process when the mother of than child could have waited and delivered the child alive and healthy for adoption. What is the basic difference in the outcome if the normal healthy child, in the womb of the mother, is deliberately killed by a gunshot (separately or along with the mother) or by the act of an abortionist? The baby, a human being, is dead as a consequence of the actions of other human being(s).