[Steve_Seattle]

I'm aware of the Griswold case. The "right to be let alone" is nonsensical as a legal principle, since it knows no boundaries and would undermine all law, but it is effective as a rhetorical flourish. What Roe and Griswold both did was to enshrine the principle that "evolving" social mores invisibly fortify the Constitution with new rights that would have been unimaginable or offensive to the Founding Fathers. It really is ludicrous to imagine that sodomy would have been considered a constitutional right, no matter how much sodomy laws might offend our modern sense of morality, privacy, or the proper extent of the law.

[CobaltBlue]

>>The "right to be let alone" is nonsensical as a legal principle, since it knows no boundaries and would undermine all law<<

Logical fallacy - reductio ad absurdum. There are always competing interests involved in a US Supreme Court case. The state has interests, the individuals have interests, and the court strikes a balance.

[CobaltBlue]

From Lawrence vs. Texas:

>>Liberty protects the person from unwarranted government intrusions into a dwelling or other private places. In our tradition the State is not omnipresent in the home. And there are other spheres of our lives and existence, outside the home, where the State should not be a dominant presence. Freedom extends beyond spatial bounds. Liberty presumes an autonomy of self that includes freedom of thought, belief, expression, and certain intimate conduct. The instant case involves liberty of the person both in its spatial and more transcendent dimensions.<<
http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/26jun20031200/www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/02pdf/02-102.pdf