Quote:
|
Originally Posted by homeboy
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by non sequitur
Putting aside Roe v. Wade, aren't you glad that the Court has interpreted the Constitution to include a right to privacy? I know that I am. I like the idea that the court recognizes that what I do in the privacy of my own home is not the business of local legislators.
|
Hoo boy, amen to that.
I could be wrong, but I seem to recall that one of the court decisions that paved the way for Roe vs. Wade was a decision to strike down laws outlawing contraception. |
The problem wasn't the decision itself, it was the creme filling that they threw in with it. While almost all of the justices at the time concurred with the decision, several wrote separate opinions because they couldn't support the way that the Constitution was being watered down. There was sufficient language in the Constitution to provide for the ruling. However, the "right to privacy" was a new creation which was later used to create new "rights" for which the constitution does not provide.
While some may argue that the right to have an abortion or the right for consenting adults to sodomize each other in the privacy of their own bedroom may exist, they are not rights which are guaranteed by the constitution. Several cases following Griswold and Roe have in fact asked the court to do just that (i.e. state that the Constitution provides for a right to practice homosexual sex).
You have to wonder, what is the next "right" that will the court will be asked to rule upon?