I hope Mark's point is not lost in all this. Is there a way to reconcile Thomas at confirmation with Thomas here? What reassurance can conservatives offer those who worry that Thomas was not honest during his hearings? Are there any interesting constitutional implications associated with judicial nominees who say one thing during confirmation hearings and something else once they are on the bench?
Howard Gillman USC Political Science ----- Original Message ----- From: Mark S Kende <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Thursday, June 26, 2003 11:39 am Subject: Re: Bowers Overruled > 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) > > >
