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,
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
I appreciate Keith's detailed look at the confirmation hearing
transcripts. Another question his post raises though is how can Thomas
endorse Harlan's view in Griswold during the confirmation hearings, and
then endorse Stewart's Griswold dissent in Lawrence. Attempts to
reconcile Thomas on
The disagreement I have with Ilya's most post below is at two
levels. First, I think Thomas' statement in Lawrence that there's no
general right to privacy should not be read to mean Thomas thinks there
is some more limited constitutional privacy right, as Ilya charitably
suggests. That would
I won't beat this dead horse any more after this. I think Eugene is right
that Thomas' reference to no general privacy right means Thomas thinks the
only rights relevant to privacy in the Constitution are those Stewart
mentioned in Griswold e.g. Third Amendment, Fourth Amendment. But that's
A propos of the discussion over the judiciary's power to interpret the
Constitution, how about DOJ's decision today apparently not to comply with
the district judge's ruling that Massaoui should be able to interview an
alleged Al Quaeda terrorist to help in his criminal defense. Presumably
if the
