Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

pokerfan

(27,677 posts)
7. if it's not in the constitution, the right doesn't exist
Mon Feb 27, 2012, 12:38 PM
Feb 2012


One of the reasons privacy will be such a big deal this century.

It's not just about abortion, it's about the next 20 years. In the '20s and '30s it was the role of government. '50s and '60s it was civil rights. The next two decades are going to be privacy. I'm talking about the Internet. I'm talking about cell phones. I'm talking about health records and who's gay and who's not. And moreover, in a country born on the will to be free, what could be more fundamental than this? -Sam, The West Wing, The Short List (1999)


Griswold v. Connecticut:

Two Justices, Hugo Black and Potter Stewart, filed dissents. Justice Black argued that the right to privacy is to be found nowhere in the Constitution. Furthermore, he criticized the interpretations of the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments to which his fellow Justices adhered. Justice Stewart famously called the Connecticut statute "an uncommonly silly law", but argued that it was nevertheless constitutional.

Since Griswold, the Supreme Court has cited the right to privacy in several rulings, most notably in Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), where the Court ruled that a woman's choice to have an abortion was protected as a private decision between her and her doctor. For the most part, the Court has made these later rulings on the basis of Justice Harlan's substantive due process rationale. The Griswold line of cases remains controversial, and has drawn accusations of "judicial activism" by many conservatives.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griswold_v._Connecticut
"If it doesn't take too long." yellerpup Feb 2012 #1
if it's not in the constitution, the right doesn't exist pokerfan Feb 2012 #7
Try and stop me! yellerpup Feb 2012 #11
I think that if our predominantly Catholic Supreme Court JDPriestly Feb 2012 #20
Too funny liberal N proud Feb 2012 #2
Yep, that's the Orgasm Lobby funded by the WANKER superpac! nt patrice Feb 2012 #3
"I've certainly never seen one."... Fumesucker Feb 2012 #4
+1 Scuba Feb 2012 #6
I spy, with my little eye, something that begins with the letter ... Kennah Feb 2012 #28
Tom Tomorrow, you are too brilliant!! BlancheSplanchnik Feb 2012 #5
Whew! That is RICH! annabanana Feb 2012 #8
Reminds me of Orwell pokerfan Feb 2012 #9
Best. One. Ever. n/t PCIntern Feb 2012 #10
k&r Electric Monk Feb 2012 #12
This guy nails it.. sendero Feb 2012 #13
Kicked and recommended. Uncle Joe Feb 2012 #14
back at you kpete Feb 2012 #17
Republicans: Looking out for collusion between the Big Orgasm special interests and women. Efilroft Sul Feb 2012 #15
Actually, since female orgasm increases the likelihood for conception... moriah Feb 2012 #16
Why would the government try to prevent the religious freedom Sparkly Feb 2012 #18
I LOVES ME SOME TOM TOMORROW Skittles Feb 2012 #19
ROFLMAO !!! - PERFECT !!! - Huge, Orgasmic, K & R !!! WillyT Feb 2012 #21
Priceless varelse Feb 2012 #22
A perfect illustration how "moderates" are created. Bonobo Feb 2012 #23
That's a classic!! madinmaryland Feb 2012 #24
OK, that does it. 2ndAmForComputers Feb 2012 #25
I have a new favorite cartoonist. AlbertCat Feb 2012 #26
Right. On. The. Nose. DirkGently Feb 2012 #27
Anyone taking odds on how long before Santorum gets behind female genital mutilation? Kennah Feb 2012 #29
That's one of his best ever... ljm2002 Feb 2012 #30
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»"The Orgasm Lobby: A...»Reply #7