Quote:
Originally Posted by Reiwa
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
The antecedent is Griswold v Connecticut and there are many sibling rulings such as Lawrence, Obergefell, and Heller.
Turns out the penumbra bats for both teams.
|
They couldn't even agree on which amendments contained that right to privacy
Quote:
In a 7-2 decision authored by Justice Douglas, the Court ruled that the Constitution did in fact protect the right of marital privacy against state restrictions on contraception. While the Court explained that the Constitution does not explicitly protect a general right to privacy, the various guarantees within the Bill of Rights create penumbras, or zones, that establish a right to privacy. Together, the First, Third, Fourth, and Ninth Amendments create the right to privacy in marital relations. The Connecticut statute conflicted with the exercise of this right and was therefore held null and void.
Justice Goldberg, joined by Justices Warren and Brennan, concurred. Rather than finding that the right to privacy was contained in imaginary penumbras, Goldberg located it in the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments.
|
and this I agree with
Quote:
Justice Black, joined by Justice Stewart, dissented. Unpersuaded by the loose reasoning of the majority, Black felt that there was no way to infer that the Constitution contained a right to privacy. He also dismissed the views of the concurrences that it could be found in the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments.
Justice Stewart, joined by Justice Black, filed a separate dissenting opinion. Stewart argued that despite his personal view that the law was "uncommonly silly," he felt that the Court had no choice but to find it constitutional.
|
If a law is silly the constitution shouldn't be bent to invent ridiculous reasons like rights to privacy which aren't even really in the constitution to fit a political agenda. Like I said they couldn't even agree which amendment/amendments contained that right to privacy. That should tell you something right there.
Now first off I agree with Justice Black that there is no way to infer the constitution contains a right to privacy. That's a very loose interpretation at best. I go further than that and say that the right to abortion guaranteed by that non-existing right to privacy is an even looser interpretation that if struck down for that reason would be a sound constitutional ruling.
06-24-2022, 01:59 AM
Linear Mode
