Well, it seems to me that you can logically believe 1) there is no GENERAL right of privacy in the Constitution (one that provides blanket protection to all consensual sexual condcut), but also 2) certain specific aspects of privacy ARE protected, perhaps because they are "fundamental rights" or for some other reason. I don't know if this is Thomas' view, but it's a plausible explanation of his position.
Ilya Somin On Thu, 26 Jun 2003, Mark S Kende wrote: > 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) >
