Yup. And yet Farah says: ....is that the Supreme Court, possibly for the first time in history, ruled on a case "with virtually no factual underpinnings."
It never ceases to amaze me when professional writers make unnecessary and inexcusable mistakes like that one. Sure, I can understand everyone not knowing about Griswold. But I can't understand someone tossing out "possibly for the first time in history" unless he's comfortable enough in the subject matter to have some confidence in what he's saying. Farah obviously wasn't, yet made the assertion anyway. It just makes people who know better lose faith in the accuracy of what he says.
Farah is only good for entertainment.