Skip to main content

View Diary: Opening the Door (281 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Griswold notwithstanding... (none)
    ... and keeping in mind that I am NOT a lawyer...

    What I'm not sure of is whether it is possible for Roberts to agree with the words but not with the scope.

    What I mean is, Conservatives believe in the validity of the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th and 9th amdendments just as much as anyone else (which could mean "a lot" or "not at all" depending on your level of cynicism.) The difference is that, to the conservative mindset, those amendments aren't as broad as everyone else interprets them to be... and instead tend to be very limited in scope, at times hamstrung to the point of offering no significant protection at all.

    So when he says there is a right to privacy that comes from those amendments, what is he saying exactly? To someone who agrees fully with Griswold, it implies that he agrees with the courts thinking. But you can technically agree with the process that went into that decision and simply append "... but I think the court went too far" and suddenly that's not necessarily the case. I'd like to know whether he thinks the amendments were written in order to protect the right to privacy, or whether the right to privacy exists only under the situations covered by those amendments.

    Again: not a lawyer, just paranoid.

    The Baptist Death Ray (bdr[at]baptistdeathray[dot]com)
    "We are all born originals -- why is it so many of us die copies?"
    - Edward Young

    by The Baptist Death Ray on Tue Sep 13, 2005 at 09:11:00 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site