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 Griswoldthe right to marital contraceptionis a "ramification" Roberts might reconsider.
I disagree with Griswold only because I think it is not a constitutional issue. And the biggest reason this matters is BECAUSE of the ramifications of that precedent.
Only for the woman. The man in the marriage has no say in it.
Apparently any right to privacy does not extend to private conversations in the office of a US Senator.
Ooops! Dere it is!!!