Actually, Marbury vs. Madison established that in 1803.
With all due respect, the 10th reserves non-federal powers to either the states or the people. It is up to the respective states to decide how those remaining powers are divvied up. With Griswold, the Feds decided that they would make that decision. And IMO, under the 10th, they had no such authority.
That may be your opinion, and certainly you're free to argue it. But nothing of the sort was raised in the Griswold case. The Tenth Amendment isn't even mentioned.
Considering the numerous well-reasoned (and moderate) responses to this thread, it occurs to me that a separate thread could be opened that would dissect Roe and its antecedents. I know there are some keen legal and pseudo-legal minds here, and it might be a good starting point for building a case to overturn.
What do people think?
And that is EXACTLY my point. Let's revist the text of the 10th again:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
The primary way that the federal government has grown to its current size is to disregard the 10th. And Griswold is a prime example of such. Like you said, SCOTUS did not mention the 10th. However, the 10th should have been the primary consideration as to whether SCOTUS could even hear the case.
If a power is not enumerated to the feds, the 9th says that the feds cannot disparage other rights not enumerated. However, the 10th in turn takes those powers and rights and tosses them to the respective states - for the citizens of the respective states and their governments to decide which powers and rights reside with state governments, and which ones are retained by the citizens of the respective states. The 9th was never meant as a constraint on the states - only the fedgove.
It should be that simple. But SCOTUS decided to disregard the 10th back during FDR's reign, and it has been seldom-invoked since. But the 10th, IMO, is the ONLY way to get the fedgov back into a corral - and that starts with the realization that we must eschew federal intervention in what are properly state matters, even if we disagree how a given state has used the powers reserved to it by the 10th.