I'll be reading more about this stuff, but I think Karen Russel get's it wrong in her post Why the “Strict Constructionist” Crowd Makes Me Really Nervous.
The dissent in Griswold was that the law was silly but it wasn't the role of the US Supreme Court to declare it so. The alternative is that the elected legislators of CT change it, it's in their power to do so and in fact it's the right place. I'm sure there are counter arguments (in the legal sense) but I don't know them yet, if anyone wants to enlighten me please do. Now if we did what the strict constructionists wanted, we pass a Right to Privacy amendment that they could strictly interpret. 3/4 of all states isn't easy, but aren't the conservatives the ones that want to keep gov't small? :)
No comments:
Post a Comment