My thoughts on this case are that there isn't a right to privacy in the Constitution. People may want there to be one, but that's what the amendment process is about. And like state laws, amendments to the US Constitution are a legislative matter, not a judicial one.
If people want the Constitution to say something, draft and ratify an amendment. Get ready to define what "privacy" means and to explain how actions that happen in one's house do or do not effect others in the society you are a citizen of. I think you'll find the scope of "privacy" shrinking and shrinking if you think about the consequences all actions have, wether they occur on this side of a wall or that one. But don't twist the 9th and 14th amendments into signifying something no-one imagined until they conjured up the penumbras they needed for Griswold.
The debate about privacy, if valuable and sincere, is something worthy of the process of Constitutional amendment.
But don't twist the 9th and 14th amendments into signifying something no-one imagined until they conjured up the penumbras they needed for Griswold.
F.R. needs to have a higher frequency of posts like yours.
F.R. should develop a 100 question bank (similar to Founders' Quiz, with substantive vs trivial questions) on the Declaration, Constitution, Fed and anti-Fed Papers, and Notes on the Convention and require answering one of those questions correctly prior to making a post.
After several hundred posts, even an illegal alien would know 100 of the most important concepts within those documents.