If you choose to begin with the premise that the rights expressed by the Court were manufactured from whole cloth where none previously existed then you reject the principal of constitution interpretation that emmantes from Marbury vs. Madison, 1803. So be it, that's a discredited school of thought and I'm not going to engage in a lengthy debate here on a subject that occupies half of every constitutional law class at every law school.
To opine that the court''didn't have to take the case'' is to restate the obvious and adds nothing.
If you choose to begin with the premise that the rights expressed by the Court were manufactured from whole cloth where none previously existed then you reject the principal of constitution interpretation that emmantes from Marbury vs. Madison, 1803. I never claimed they invented them out of "whole cloth". They simply distorted existing rights beyond all plain meaning to create new rights previously undiscovered in the Constitution. But if you think opposition to the use of emanations and penumbras to invent new rights is equivalent to opposing Marbury, then you're right. Discussion is pointless.