Your snide comment is neither funny nor relevent.
Ann is making telling arguments while other conservative writers cower. We need a SCOTUS nominee who will serve to restore the Constitution. The litmus test is agreeing with the dissent of Griswold .
What provision of the Constitution, then, does make this state law invalid? The Court says it is the right of privacy "created by several fundamental constitutional guarantees." With all deference, I can find no such general right of privacy in the Bill of Rights, in any other part of the Constitution, or in any case ever before decided by this Court.
At the oral argument in this case we were told that the Connecticut law does not "conform to current community standards." But it is not the function of this Court to decide cases on the basis of community standards. We are here to decide cases "agreeably to the Constitution and laws of the United States." It is the essence of judicial [381 U.S. 479, 531] duty to subordinate our own personal views, our own ideas of what legislation is wise and what is not. If, as I should surely hope, the law before us does not reflect the standards of the people of Connecticut, the people of Connecticut can freely exercise their true Ninth and Tenth Amendment rights to persuade their elected representatives to repeal it. That is the constitutional way to take this law off the books.
If Miers doesn't agree with this dissent, then commit her nomination to the flames, and find an effective originalist nominee.
From Griswald: "What provision of the Constitution, then, does make this state law invalid? The Court says it is the right of privacy "created by several fundamental constitutional guarantees." With all deference, I can find no such general right of privacy in the Bill of Rights, in any other part of the Constitution, or in any case ever before decided by this Court."
* * *
There is also nothing in the Constitution that excepts pornagraphy from the right to free speech and to a free press as guaranteed by the First Amendment, yet the Supreme Court has ruled that pornagraphy is not protected by the First Amendment if it violates community standards (which are not mentioned in the Constitution). Nor are there any restrictions in the First Amendment to the right to peacefully assemble, yet the Court has ruled that it has the right to prohibit citizens from peacefully assembling in front of the Supreme Court Building and has ruled that govenrment can generally regulate the time, place, and manner of speach and assembly even though the Constitution contains no such qualification upon First Amendment Rights. In view of your support of the dissent in "Griswald" do you agree with the Court's decisions restricting First Amendment rights with respect to pornagraphy and peaceful assembly even though the Constitution contains no such qualification?