Good point. I don't like her answer on judicial activism, precedent, and stare decisis, particularly in the context of Griswold. Her answer seems to view the issue narrowly and from only one perspective.
That case held that married people could use contraceptives. But the court went far over the banks of reason by actively creating penumbras and emanations to come to that conclusion.
Respecting Griswold is judicial activism. Nevertheless, she can legitimately say that she agrees with the holding in Griswold. I do too - married people should be able to use contraceptives. But there's no way in hell she ever better say that she respects Griswold's creation of penumbras and emanations because then she's no better than the activists who created them.
Having said that, chipping away at the notion of penumbras and emanations doesn't necessarily mean overruling Griswold. It can mean emphatically thrashing any opinion which attempts to use that judicial creation to justify any particular holding of the court.
There must be a law review or something that analyzes the reult if Griswold is upheld by White's logic (substantive due process), and all the emanations and penumbras crap is tossed out. What other cases fall, losing the rationale expressed in the majority opinions other than White's?
And what other cans of worms are opened if substantive due process is elevated?