Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: pookie18

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


4 posted on 10/17/2005 3:47:45 PM PDT by TheDon (The Democratic Party is the party of TREASON!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]


To: TheDon
Yes...found this...

Roberts was asked to locate the right to privacy in the Constitution. He quoted parts of the Bill of Rights pertaining to military occupations and invasions of citizens' homes. Does the right to privacy extend beyond those contexts? Roberts offered one addition: "I agree with the Griswold court's conclusion that marital privacy extends to contraception." Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., pressed him about the extension of contraceptive rights to unmarried people. "I don't have any quarrel with that conclusion," he allowed. What about Lawrence v. Texas, the 2003 case that interpreted Griswold to bar prosecution of private sex between consenting adults? Roberts ducked the question, citing "the difference between the issue that was presented in Griswold and its ramifications." In other words, any claim of privacy beyond the specific "issue" in Griswold—the right to marital contraception—is a "ramification" Roberts might reconsider.

9 posted on 10/17/2005 3:52:14 PM PDT by pookie18 (Clinton Happens...as does Dr. Demento Dean, Bela Pelosi & Benedick Durbin!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies ]

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

Seems like every judicial decision is settled law nowadays. Might as well disband the legislative branch. What are we paying them for?
145 posted on 10/17/2005 5:38:42 PM PDT by Kokojmudd (Trade the US Senate for the Iraqi Parliament!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson