No, I would not.
The judicial decision was the result of slavery being legal, and expressly contemplated in the Constitution. The way to reverse the horrible results created by correctly applying the law was for Congress to propose an amendment that eliminated the grounds for the decision: which they did, and which the states ratified in 1868.
I don’t want judges creating the “right” result when the law is a bad one – I want legislators creating the law.
In making the Dred Scott decision, the Court recognized that the Constitution clearly and expressly contemplated slavery. (“…three-fifths of all other Persons…” in Art I Sec 2 a compromise arising from the slave states’ desire to count slaves as a whole person even when they could not vote, and free states’ desire to not count them at all; “…The Migration and Importation of such Persons…” in Art I Sec 9; and the actual Fugitive Slave Clause in Art IV, Sec 2: “No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom Service or Labour may be due.”)
Now, are you hoping I’d want to see the institution of slavery ended? Yes, absolutely.
But are you hoping I’d want the Court to simply decide that because its members opposed slavery as wrong, that was good enough reason to re-interpret it out of the Constitution? No. No, no, no.
We can amend the Constitution if it produces results we don’t like. We cannot – or SHOULD not, anyway – grant judges the power to become super-legislators and substantively rewrite the Constitution.