Talk:Griswold v. Connecticut
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is part of WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases, a collaborative effort to improve articles related to Supreme Court cases and the Supreme Court. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page. |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale. |
| Top | This article is on a subject of top-importance within WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases for inclusion in Wikipedia 1.0. |
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to human sexuality on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. | ||
|
Assessment comments
|
|||
A landmark ruling in 1965 that struck down a state law that banned contraceptives for everyone, including married couples.
"Connecticut Supreme Court of Errors" Vandalism?Countmippipopolous 09:07, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
No, Connecticut actually has a Supreme Court of Errors. LoyolaDude 18:29 CST, 9 November 2006
[edit] Mismatch between sidebar and text
The text makes reference to a concurring opinion written by Goldberg, though the sidebar doesn't mention it.
- The text was correct; the sidebar originally included the concurrence, but it was accidentally omitted when it was changed to a template code format. I've corrected it. Postdlf 16:49, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Lawrence v. Texas
In the "Subsequent Jurisprudence" section I added appropriate quotations from and the citation for Lawrence v. Texas, while focusing on the legal basis of Lawrence and its derivation from Griswold as laid out by Justice Kennedy in his majority opinion. Feliciapatch 15:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] "Right of Privacy" doesn't mean what's implied here
"Privacy" as used in Griswold is based on due process and has a very particular meaning that isn't elaborated on here. It's not simply privacy in the usual sense of the word. Most of the problems even pro-choice jurists have with Roe is it's use (misuse) of the right to privacy - in effect, Griswold's dicta makes a narrow argument based on the fact that to enforce the law would violate any form of due process (that's the sort of privacy that emanates from the "penumbras" of the Constitution), whereas Roe found that some external right to privacy existed and that abortion during the first trimester was protected by that privacy. The points are very different in theory and in practice, and its distinction should be made here. Ryanluck (talk) 05:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
