When taken in context with other right to privacy decisions, there’s nothing radical about Lawrence vs Texas. Bowers was an anomoly that wasn’t in line with those other decisions.
I presume that if Roe vs Wade is overturned, you’d also overturn every single case ever decided to invoked the “right to privacy”. The whole house of cards would come crumbling down. THAT is a radical move.
I guess it’s timely to revive this thread, since Roberts is now coming up for a confirmation vote. Does anybody have anything to add?
And I repeat my earlier question to Bricker: If you would support a “right to privacy” amendment to the U.S. Constitution – one which emphatically would not guarantee the right to abortion – then what, specifically, would it guarantee?
It might guarantee the right to consensual sodomy as outlined in Lawrence. It might guarantee the right to practice contraception as discussed in Griswold.
There’s a whole long list of invented rights hung onto the “privacy” pin that I think are wise and valuable things to have… but as real, written guarantees, not invented out of the minds of cleverly creative jurists.
I could get behind that . . . just for the sake of seeing the words “sodomy” and “contraception” in the Constitution . . . 