Replies

Miers' justification may have been wrong but I must say that the idea of any goverment body having the power to control what a married couple does in the bedroom is so repugnant to the idea of being secure in your property and person and the spirit of the 4th amendment that I see no problem with the Griswold decision.

Abortion is not a privacy issue because there is an innocent life involved not to mention the simpler fact that it is a medical procedure and as such should be subject to state censure. But wouldn't taking the other side in Griswold ential also assuming that a state has the power to outlaw premarital sex as well?

But wouldn't taking the other side in Griswold ential also assuming that a state has the power to outlaw premarital sex as well?

In fact, without Griswold, what would stop the State of CT from outlawing post marital sex altogether and not just some old-fashioned ideas of what what and what was no allowable between the marriage sheets?

I can admit that the question of how you get from Griswold to abortion is legitimate and I can even admit that how you get from right to privacy to prying open the pharmacies to sell products that the laws of the state prohibit, but the claim that there is no fundamental right to privacy is absurd.

So we leave it up to nine Supreme Beings vs the people? The point is that the law was not unconstitutional! No the state shouldn't be making laws like that of Griswold, but the people in that state have the right to petition their legislatures to get it taken away! It's not up to a lifetime appointment in a robe to make up the Constitution as they go along!

I ask, if there is a fundamental right to privacy, why haven't the American people voted it as such? They wouldn't now because of the perversion the court has taken with that "right". Legislators won't because if we have a right to privacy, what then right does the government have to charge people with crimes such as prostitution or drug use? If you're in your own home...

The fabric of this country did start to deteriorate with birth control. Think about it. When we started using birth control - we started playing God. By saying "I decide when I will have children (not God)" we decided we no longer had a need to wait til marriage and Griswold gave us Roe. Do you ever wonder what God thinks of our "blessed" nation today?

Miers' justification may have been wrong but I must say that the idea of any goverment body having the power to control what a married couple does in the bedroom is so repugnant to the idea of being secure in your property and person and the spirit of the 4th amendment that I see no problem with the Griswold decision.

But this is exactly the objection. If you decide something, even correctly, but cite the wrong reasons and don't rely upon the Constitution, you're engaging in judicial activism and replacing the voice of the people and the safeguards of the Constitution and guarantees of the Bill of Rights with your own personal political preferences.

The issue, for conservatives, is not whether Griswold was correctly decided. It's whether Griswold opened up a huge can of worms and introduced the poison of a right to 'privacy' (codeword for abortion in the modern era) into the courts where they could subsequently use that foothold to turn contraception into abortion-on-demand. And progress to abortion up to the moment of birth and abortion for minors without parents permission.

All flow from the flawed legal reasoning introduced in Griswold. But the flaw in Griswold is far more in the grounds cited in the majority opinion, not in the actual results of the case.

This is why you need jurists with a strong constitutional background and knowledge of history. Anything less gets you a thousand Griswolds and a million Roes. It's a very bad way to run courts. That's why the libs like it so much. And why they are so desperate to stop the best constructionist nominees.