i think griswold is wrongly decided. one of the things i tried to get my students to proposes do not read the constitution through the lens of their political bias. i tried to get them to come to the realization that the constitution doesn't grant a right to everything you think would be a good idea and doesn't prohibit everything bad. the text says ineffective meaning, the bedrock of the foundation of rights. griswold is a classic case of a result seeking a persuasive reason and not finding it. in justice douglas opinion, hecites the first amendment, freedom of speech . the right to contraception. that's stretching things. he claims the third amendment right to not have soldiers cornered in your home, that supports it too. the fourth amendment prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures and he keeps going. the fifth amendment, the ninth amendment which is a simple rule that the existence of a bill of rights doesn't take awayyour state law rights. it sort of extrapolates to the idea that this would be a really

griswold vs. connecticut. this is a greatest hits tour of the constitution, and it is exciting to be able, this case became the foundation for roe v. wade. it is the late 1960's, and connecticut is the only state that still bans the use of contraceptives for married couples. you can learn about the human stories behind this case in the book about the right to privacy, where he describes interplay between pt barnum and katharine hepburn's mother, and the director of planned parenthood. the constitutional question is, does the constitution protects the right of marital privacy? you can teach a whole constitutional case about griswold, but there are at least three basic arguments for striking down the law. justice william o douglas has a freewheeling opinion for the majority that is famous for its invocation of the numbers formed by different parts of the constitution which he says coalesced into eight free-floating right to privacy. i heard a chuckle in the audience, and there was a chuckle among the law clerks

i think griswold is wrongly decided. i agree with the political result, the one of the things i try to get my students to do, is not read the constitution to the lens of their political beliefs. i try to get them to the realization that the constitution does not grant a right to everything you think would be a good idea, and doesn't prohibit everything that is a bad idea. the text has an objective meaning, and that is the bedrock of our foundational rights. i think griswold is a classic case of a result seek persuasive reason and not finding it. in justice douglas's opinion he , cites the first amendment freedom of speech and association for the right to contraception. that is stretching things. he finds the third amendment right to not have soldiers quartered in your home. that supports it to. the fourth amend the prohibition against unreasonable search and seizure, and he keeps going, the fifth amendment, the night the minute, which is a simple rule that the existence of a bill of rights does not take away or state law

i think griswold was right. and griswold there was one state, a weird outlier state, that made it a crime for married couples to use contraception. and the court struck down an odd law that was out of sync with national norms. in roe v. wade, this court struck down a law in about 48 of 50 states. only new york actually met roe v. wade standards. if you are doing that you better be able to show something clearly in the constitution. now let's look at the death penalty. the constitution uses a word unusual, cruel and unusual punishment. that might be an invitation to count. at the time of the founding it was not unusual to put pickpockets to death. over time a number of states decided that seemed extreme. at a certain point putting a pickpocket to death becomes unusual, maybe cruel and unusual, and then unconstitutional. in 1972 there was a year in which nobody was executed. people were convicted of death penalty offenses, there were lots of people on death row, but nobody executed. the court thought they were civ

akhil: let's connect the dots, i feel griswold is right. i think roe is problematic. in griswold there was one state, the weird outlier state that made it a crime for married couples to use contraception and the court struck down an audit law that was out of sync with basically national norms which helped generate an idea of what was fundamental. that's what i learned. in row, the court struck down the law in 48 of the 50 states. only new york of all the states actually met those standards. one case striking down one law and another case striking down all the laws. when you are doing that, you better be able to show something in the constitution. let's go to the death penalty. the constitution uses a word unusual. >> the constitution uses a word unusual, cruel and unusual punishment. that might be an. and a time of the founding it was not unusual to put pickpockets to that. over the time a number of states decided that seems extreme. in a number of states putting it pickpocketed that becomes unusual, maybe cruel and unusual, and then unconstitutional. in 1972 there wa

teach law case about griswold but there are at least arguments for striking down the law. justice william dough also has freewheeling opinion for the majority that is famous for innovation of the numbers formed by im nations from the theous different parts of consti augusts which he says coalesced into a privacy act. chuckle in thee audience and there was chuckle among the law clerks as well dough let'sst read draft because it seems goosy injustice hugo black said the married couples to associate is new he to me, basically. that douglas wag too variousling and the parts of privacy and the first, fourth all the various anticipates and the rit ofnts in cre ating a privacy. justice john we are hearing john this here a narrow row opinion. grandson of the first. and great conservative says there is priv in the home perhaps rooted in the fourth may be in trucive to enforce the marital proof sy homes inbreak into kays that would rye vie late then there is suggestion and opinion the law is so unusual. the only one of its kind in the the histories of evolved in way that recognized

but the one that strikes me the most is the griswold v. connecticut case. that was back in the mid 1960's sometime. maybe 1964. where connecticut had outlawed contraceptives. they were a strong catholic state at the time. so they outlawed contraceptives. griswold went to court and said, no, we're married, we should be able to buy contraceptives and the state of connecticut shouldn't interfere in that. so the supreme court manufactured this thing called a right to privacy. which was the privacy was protected by contraceptive activities within the marriage. and so that case went in, as a precedent case, it established a right to privacy. and then there was a follow-up case. that would be the other case. it said, it doesn't matter whether you're married, you should be able to buy contraceptives, if you're co-habiting, rather than being joined together in holy matry moan. and the supreme court -- matry moany. and the supreme court -- matrimony. and the supreme court found in their favor in that cafmentse then here comes roe -- case. and then here comes roe v. w

children's hospital of washington, d.c.. 1965, griswold the connecticut, the right to privacy 1973 in roe v. wade. 1992, 1 of the planned parenthood cases. in the last cases it was liberals and citing the dissent. that's an example of this shifting politics. >> i think the liberals, being in favor of judicial activism, which dick nixon ran on the idea he is going to appoint judges that will follow the constitution. it was liberals who were the activist. i think that was the anomaly. i think by and large conservatives have been the activist overtime. the conservative side of the political docket, i think your term was a post new deal mentality, i think that is turning around a little bit now. >> i hope it is. i think it is turning around a little bit so that you have it at the same time we have chief justice roberts complaining about the liberals. you justice ginsburg talking at the national federation of business about the conservatives uprising. there are talking about the two different elements of lochner. one is talking about judicial activism, roberts. one is talking about traditi