The principle in Griswold re: the prohibition of the state to interfere with "fundamental liberties" not specifically enumerated in the Bill of Rights was clearly a positive step, especially in light of the wholesale destruction of liberties during the New Deal era. The principle of Griswold is sound and that principle is that there are certain individual liberties that the state has no business interfering with and that they have no legitimate authority to do so.
The principle was terribly distorted in Roe in that the Court took the opportunity to create a "fundamental right" to kill unborn children, a supposedly "fundamental" right which had never before existed in the history of mankind.
The right to be left alone, the right to live your life peacefully without any unnecessary government intrusion was very forcefully enunciated by Justice Stewart in his concurring opinion in Griswold, and this is an opinion which I believe goes back to the founding principles of our Republic. Douglas' Court opinion was not as forceful and really was not all the coherent. I frankly think Douglas' opinion was somewhat incoherent on purpose because Douglas saw in this case the future opportunity to create a fundamental right to abortion and then to protect it under the ninth amendment (clearly an abortion of the whole principle of judicial restraint).
No, I think Griswold was a good decision in that it reaffirmed the rights of the individual over that of the government. I think it is a good decision to use to argue that the government has no right to force anyone to (among other things) purchase any insurance policy or to interfere with the legitimate private decisions of a person whether to buy one policy or another or whether to not buy any policy at all.
bookmark
Agree with you on Roe, but decidedly not on Griswold. Nothing in the decision did or could enhance the Bill of Rights. I agree with one of the justices who claimed it was a “silly” decision. How can anyone at any time be assured of privacy? Do we not already have the “liberty” to TRY to preserve our individual privacy? But that’s the best we can do; a law doesn’t GIVE us that privacy any more surely than the law against murder keeps us from being murdered. Privacy, like safety which, some might argue, is a higher good than privacy and likewise unmentioned in the Constition, simpmly can’t be legislated. As a Catholic, my notions of the integrity of this decision are most definitely biased and confirm for me the path Pius X predicted: Divorce, Contraception, Abortion, Homosexuality, Euthanasia. Nearly all these natural-law violations are now lawful thanks at least in part to the inanity of Griswold.
But I’ve got to admit that I’d find it particularly delicious if Griswold happened to thwart Obamacare.
And thank you for giving me the heads up, dearest sister in Christ!
Griswold clearly should be used in arguing that the Health Care Act is unconstitutional. Either the Supremes stand by the Griswold "right" to be left alone or they weaken Griswold and Roe along with it since it stands on it.