[pookie18]

Didn't Roberts also say that a right to privacy is in the constitution?

[TheDon]

I think it was that RvW was "settled law", or something like that.

[RWR8189]

I don't think he went as far as to endorse Griswold.

[gondramB]

A right to privacy does exist in the constitution, it just doesnt give a mother the right to kill her child.

[Don'tMessWithTexas]

Roberts said that the right to privacy exists thorugh the "liberty" clause found in the fifth and fourteenth amendments. This is the same view of Justice Thomas. Griswold is the decision that found that the right exists in the penumbras and emanations of the Bill of Rights. that was the view of Douglas and most liberal justices. If this report is true, Miers is no Scalia or Thomas.

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

Roberts said it and then again he didn't say it. He was the master at saying two opposite things at the same time. It seemed to me that he pointed out all the legitimate privacy issues that everyone agrees with, while not necessarily agreeing with the broad and generalized privacy that leaves judges free to impose anything and everything they want without the people's consent. But I certainly wouldn't gamble on that. He was a slippery fellow.

This however is different. Most people agree with the results of Griswold, but that doesn't mean it was the right of the judges to decide the issue.

[BibChr]

Yes; and he based it on various amendments (private property, free speech, freedom of religion, etc.) -- NOT the pro-aborts' darling, #14.

This doesn't help the anti-Miers obsessives at all.

Well, not objectively.

Dan