Reading The Tempting of America is absolutely essential to this discussion. To people who have not read it, Bork's assertion that there is no right of privacy in the Constitution is incomprehensible.
People who are unfamiliar with the Constitutional underpinnings of our system of jurisprudence don't realize how far afield the Supreme Court has strayed.
They view the SCOTUS as a sort of supralegislature, whose duty it is to nullify badly designed laws, e.g. in the case of Griswold, regardless of whether or not it is empowered to do so.
Bork has explained-on numerous occasions-that there is a right to individual liberty implicit in the Bill of Rights, but that does not mean that there exists some free-floating "right" to "privacy," which enables the Supreme Court to infer into vital Constitutional clauses its own pre-existing philosophical or political viewpoints.