I'm trying to figure out how to descirbe Thomas' statement in the dissent that there is no general right to privacy in the U.S. Constitution or Bill of Rights. According to Gerber, First Principles at 58, "Thomas testified that there is a right to privacy in the Fourteenth Amendment." Similarly, Mayer and Abramsom's book, Strange Justice, says that "Thomas also steadfastly refused Biden's invitation to state his position on abortion, going only so far as to endorse a constitutionally protected right to privacy." (pp. 216-217). Is this an example of an "evolving jurisprudence"? Mark
Mark Kende Professor of Law University of Montana School of Law Missoula, Montana 59812 406-243-4317 (phone) 406-243-2576 (fax)
