Why do you claim that Connecticut was the rightful arbiter and the SC had no right of review. Which privacy rights did they find that don't exist in the constitution? Do you argue that no privacy rights exist in the constitution? Have you actually read the Griswold decision in its original, rather than just rely on what it's detractors say about it? What do you think the fatally wrong argument is?
"Have you actually read the Griswold decision in its original"
Yes, the whole thing. It was required reading, along with Roe v. Wade, when I took the Con Law course in law school. I'm surprised you are so willing to let the Federal judiciary be the judge of what is or is not a right of privacy.
"Which privacy rights did they find that don't exist in the constitution? Do you argue that no privacy rights exist in the constitution?"
The association of people is not mentioned in the Constitution nor in the Bill of Rights. The right to educate a child in a school of the parents' choice - whether public or private or parochial - is also not mentioned. Nor is the right to study any particular subject or any foreign language. Yet the First Amendment has been construed to include certain of those rights.