"Sink you are fighting a losing battle, these people dont give a damn about faCTS"
What a load of BS.
I know some people think differently, but I think you can not have a huge problem with Griswold, but have one with Roe. True, Griswold might have started the slippery slope to Roe, but I really don't think it was "making law" to say the ninth amendment protects a right for a married couple to have privacy in their use of contraceptives. The constitution may very well protect that. I am just saying it is not that much of stretch (while it may be a small one). However, to extend the privacy issue to say the 9th amendment protects abortions, well that is absurd, crazy, and ridiculous. I don't think you can blame Grisold so much for Roe, because really, any 5 justices can take a past decision and stretch it sooo far as to what that decision really said to incorporate a new right like Roe did. I think a line can be drawn between the two. You can agree with Griswold and still be a strong vote to overturn Roe. I think Roberts fits this scenario. Miers, who the hell knows.
I have my wading boots on up yo my shoulder blades with some of the sh-- you guys have been putting out.