Quote:
Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Of course its not right, and of course there is a common law, and of course both the constitution and common law on which it is based give people the basic right to privacy. Strict constructionalism is just a trick of the Right to take away common law basic human rights. Its absurd. "If its not explicitly written exactly as a 'right to privacy' in the Constitution, then it doesn't exist." Its the sort of silly hypertechnical procedural argument judges routinely throw out because to side with it would "frustrate the very intent of the law."
Strict constructionalism throws common sense out the window. Its as intellectually dishonest and imbecillic as biblical literalism.
|
I believe Griswold was 4-3-2
the 4 and the 3 disagreed where in the Amendments the right was found- but they all found it.
Arguing that of course there is such a right- regardless of whether it is in the Constitution- would have been perhaps a more honest rationale. It was not, however, the holding of Griswold.
