This doesn't even make sense. Dickerson has to do with Congress trying to circumvent Miranda through legislation. Period. Congress is not trying to circumvent Roe, nor did it try to circumvent Plessy.
Plessy was workable for over half a century until it was overturned. Roe has been workable for 46 years. But workability has zero to do with Dickerson, or the Constitution for that matter. Both Plessy and Roe defied the Constitution. Both can be overturned by any court willing to adhere to the wording of the Constitution.
That's what they said about Plessy.
You clearly do not understand Dickerson then. In Dickerson, the Court concluded that Congress could have overridden Miranda only if Miranda was not a constitutionally based decision. The Court then concluded that even if Miranda went beyond the requirements of the Fifth, it was still a constitutional decision and, therefore, that Congress could not override it legislatively.
The Court then considered whether to overturn Miranda given that it was not strictly based on the Constitution, and the Court decided that it would not overrule Miranda because it addressed a significant issue, it was workable, and the principles underpinning it had not been undone.
The same would apply to Roe if we assume - plain logic to the contrary - that Roe is not constitutional, and Roe would pass that test because it is workable, and it’s essential principle - individual freedom and liberty - has not been undercut.
Plessy would fail. It was clear beyond any peradventure that separate was inherently not equal. The essence of Plessy was fully undercut, and Plessy did nothing more than enable exactly the sorts of inequality it was supposed to mitigate; it was therefore unworkable.
It’s a shame that you cannot come to grips with reality, but that is life. Plenty of other people, flat-earthers come to mind - can’t deal with reality either.
Roe is not going anywhere; it certainly isn’t going the way of Plessy.