griswold vs. connecticut. roadie weighed none of those is the bill of rights case. because the bill of rights and rigidly was against a federal government in the tenth amendment is in between of celebrations with an anti-federalist teethirty but that is not our bill of rights today so to have those states and localities with gideon and laurence vs. texas and for alabama to shut down. or ran the verses arizona most of the cases those bill of rights cases are not original bill of rights was limiting the central government. so what kind of cases are? with a brown verses board of education? the 14th amendment cases that they shall enforce any law that is a second bill of rights that is more intuitive than today because the state this be a because madison lost but no state shall violate so he wishes in the end so also a little bit ironic because all of this precipitated the 14th amendment from the abuse of power to be charter members to from day political party on the southern base that benefited in the electoral college because of the 3/5 clause jefferson and madison ev

in the final confirmation hearing he was asked directly if he agreed withec griswold vs. connecticut the decision that says married couples could not be criminalize for usingsi contraception. w he said it is of precedent worthy of respect would not agree. chief justice roberts said he agreed. and thomas injustice toledo said he agreed that judge gorsuch would not. this is been used repeatedly to basically create a body of constitutional precedent that says the relationships of people should be freed from intrusion of the ever met. you cannot come alliance because of theirg relationship. fare not willing to connect to that principle is someone who has not earned my voteen and i yield the floor thanks to my friend from texas. >> madam president members of the senate are talking about the importance to vote o we are casting tomorrow andd friday to result in the confirmation of judge course it just the next associate justice to the united states supreme court. having served on the judiciary committee committed as ben my honor to purchase pay in the confirmation hearings and what i have b

griswold v. connecticut, new york times v. sullivan, brown vs. board of education, roe v. wade, lawrence v. texas, miranda v. arizona, none of those is a bill of rights case. tinker v. des moines. why not? because the bill of rights originally applied only against the federal government. congress shall make no law of a certain sort, and the tenth amendment is about states' rights. and in between there are celebrations of local juries and local militias. the original bill of rights was an a anti-federalist, tea party, localist suspicion of the federal government. and that's important, but that's not our bill of rights today because you believe we as madison believe that some of your most fundamental rights need to be protected against states is and localities. board of education v. kansas, gideon v. wainwright is florida. roe v. wade, whether you believe it or not, is texas. new york times v. sullivan was an effort by alabama to shut down free speech. so miranda v. arizona, again, grist world v. county -- crest crest -- griswold v. connecticut. most cases people think are bill of rights case