I am a little confused, and I will explain to you why.
For one thing, the right to privacy, as I understand it, is based on natural law, according to past SCOTUS members. When they recognized it in 1965, they said it was a right older than the Constitution itself. They were referring to natural law, weren’t they?
Secondly, original intent judges like Kavanaugh believe in religiously defending the original meaning of the Constitution. In fact, that is usually what they hit everyone else over the head with, when someone criticizes their ruling. The Constitution and nothing else. So how does natural law come into play?
And lastly, I have to mention, our founding fathers were very into natural law and natural rights. And they were often anti-religion. Or at least, anti-established religion. Again, how do original intent jurists like Kavanaugh think they can fall back on natural law and rights?
I will certainly try to find the articles I read, if requested. But I can’t make any guarantees. I mean, could you find every article you recently read?
Also, it has been a while since I took a government or political science class. So I may be rusty on those subjects. So please feel free to correct me where I am wrong.
But I get most of my “education” from the internet now. Don’t we all?
Thank you in advance to all who reply:).