|
|
|
|
|
|
by car_analogy
1486 days ago
|
|
|
> I'm not just insisting it's a strawman. It is a straw man. It wasn't a strawman (I do not claim anyone argued everything in private is legal), it was reductio as absurdum - taking the privacy argument to its logical limit. If a right to privacy makes abortion legal because it is private, why does this apply only to abortion? Actually, only to a subset of abortion, since "this right is not unqualified and must be considered against important state interests in regulation". You quoted the court saying this is "not unlimited" and about "personal privacy" (distinguished from 'general' privacy?). How does any of this follow from "security against unreasonable search"? Or do I misunderstand, and they derived this right from some other amendment or combination of amendments? The reasoning, so far as I understand it, is tortured at best, so I'd be grateful if you could clarify the court's logic for me. |
|
|
Yes, they derived it from the 14th Amendment's Due Process clause.