[general_re]

You're arguing that it was implicit in his silence?

I'm arguing that it was explicit by the fact that he signed his name below Black's on that case. If Black's blanket incorporation was a problem for him, he certainly could have signed on to the majority decision, or written his own concurrence. He did not - Black spoke in his stead, and therefore we may infer that Black's reasoning is his reasoning.

Even in his notorious Griswald opinion, Douglas didn't argue blanket incorporation.

Apples and oranges. Griswold was about Douglas trying to parse out implied rights from the gaps in the BoR - he was shooting for stuff not explicitly listed in the BoR. In Duncan, the applicability was clear - the question was whether the Sixth amendment right to jury trials, as explicitly enumerated in the BoR, should apply to state prosecutions. In Griswold, there was nothing to be incorporated via the 14'th - the BoR is silent on rights of privacy - so Douglas had to lean on "penumbras" to get what he wanted out of it.

[Roscoe]

I'm arguing that it was explicit by the fact that he signed his name below Black's on that case.

And therefore was implicitly agreeing with dicta in the dissent?

Find even one explict quote by Douglas.

[Roscoe]

I'm arguing that it was explicit by the fact that he signed his name below Black's on that case.

And therefore was implicitly agreeing with dicta in the dissent?

Find even one explict quote by Douglas.