Meet the new Bork, same as the old Bork
Aug. 2nd, 2012 09:07 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
elfsAnotonin Scalia has become Robert Bork.
Robert Bork once said that Griswold v. Connecticut, the ruling that allowed women to discuss birth control with their physicians without the intereference of the government, and which ensured that such a conversation was private, was wrongly ruled: as he famously put it, "The sexual gratification of one group is being elevated the the anguish of another group's moral gratifications. Nowhere in the Constutition do we find the imposition of a heirarchy of gratifications."
Scalia has now embraced this argument fully. There is no right to privacy to be found in the Constution.
Many constitutional scholars feel otherwise. Primarily, they argue that the Sixth Amendment, the one about being required to board soldiers in one's homes, is a specific example of a generalized case: the government may not put monitors into your home without a warrant for a specified reason.
Robert Bork once said that Griswold v. Connecticut, the ruling that allowed women to discuss birth control with their physicians without the intereference of the government, and which ensured that such a conversation was private, was wrongly ruled: as he famously put it, "The sexual gratification of one group is being elevated the the anguish of another group's moral gratifications. Nowhere in the Constutition do we find the imposition of a heirarchy of gratifications."
Scalia has now embraced this argument fully. There is no right to privacy to be found in the Constution.
Many constitutional scholars feel otherwise. Primarily, they argue that the Sixth Amendment, the one about being required to board soldiers in one's homes, is a specific example of a generalized case: the government may not put monitors into your home without a warrant for a specified reason.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Re: "Rights" vs. "Constitutional rights"
Date: 2012-08-06 04:56 am (UTC)This is traditionally known as "rule of men" as opposed to "rule of law." If individuals can change the function of the Constitution, the Constitution has no meaning.
I can also think of many ways in which I would change the Constitution, but I should never be given the authority to make those changes just because I feel strongly about them. Nor should anyone else.
I think we're on the same page regarding Iraq, but that is a different discussion.
. png