[WOSG]

"Also, I find it odd that the affirmative action decision threads did not garner NEARLY the responses that the sodomy decision did. "

Both decisions deviated from the constitution and are wrong.

What is twisted is the false allegation that defending the constitution from the absuve and false 'right to privacy' means you are in favor of jailing folks for sodomy.

A non-sequitor! Reread the Thomas concurrence to Scalia's brilliant Dissent.

it is quite clear: It is up to the Democratic process to decide these matters. Anything else is judicial tyranny.

[Skywalk]

It seems to me there IS a right to something AKIN to privacy, if not the way some would define it.

If you are to be secure in your papers, effects and property that necessarily obligates a "respect of privacy" by the government. Now, you don't have a right to an all-inclusive privacy from uncomfortable intrusions(say paparazzi) because they are not agents of the State.

If you do NOT have a right to privacy, then you apparently do not have a right to be secure in your papers, etc nor do you have any rights that the BoR does not mention.

But then that ignores the 9th.