I don't disagree with any of that, but the Supreme Court can't simply declare ex nihilo that the 19th Amendment is unconstitutional; they have to have a case which involves it. That means that some state legislature has to pass a law that either conflicts with the 19th Amendment, or at least gives the right-wing radicals on the Court a fig leaf to claim that it does. I'm not aware of any such case, anywhere. (Although give the howler monkeys in the Texas GOP a couple of more years and I'd say there's a shot.) Meanwhile, Obergefell, Lawrence, and Griswold are just sitting right there on the table, so to speak. So, for that matter, is Loving, which, like Griswold, is barely older than Roe. I wonder how long it will be before Thomas's allies decide he's outlived his usefulness?

ETA: And all three of those cases are directly related to the same establishment of the right to privacy that has just been torpedoed by the Six, as has been pointed out repeatedly.