"do people actually have a problem with Griswold v. Connecticut, which upheld a married couple's right to use contraception?""
There is a HUGH AND SERIES difference between (a) agreeing with the RESULT of a case, and (b) agreeing with the LEGAL REASONING used to reach the result. The problem is that peole who disagree with a decision because they don't like the legal reasoning can be BORKED by those who claim that means they don't like the result, either.
For a discussion of the key dissent in Griswold, see this:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1502605/posts
Having read Bork, above, I disagree with Bork, and he knows better. The slippery slope argument is not an intellectual one, but a moral one. A mind as sharp as Bork's surely knows the difference, and can surely locate the pivotal error without having to condemn all arguments as wrong because they contributed to an unacceptable conlusion. He his disingenuous here.