During his confirmation hearing (video, at minute 10:20), Robert Bork talked about a case called Griswold, which eventually ended up in the Supreme Court.

The Connectcut law apparently "prohibited any person from using any drug, medicinal article or instrument for the purpose of preventing conception." (ibidem., internal quotation marks omitted).

Bork, as seen in the video at 1, tought the law was unenforcable, because the police would never obtain a warrant to enter a marital bedroom to find out whether the couple was using contraceptive, nor it would get a warrant to wiretape and find out whether the couple was using contraceptive. Basically the police would not be able to get evidence that the couple was using contraceptives.

  1. But was the selling of contraceptive legal? Why would Connecticut ban the use of contraceptive, and not contextually ban its selling? If the selling was a crime too, then it would make sense that the couple would not get contraceptive in the first place. So, for practial purposes, it would not really matter whether they could get evidence of the crime, because a couple would be impeded from the using of contraceptives by their inability to find them legally.

  2. Moreover, it is not clear to me whether Bork ever dealt with this case as a Judge. The Wikipedia page of the case says that "the conviction was upheld by the Appellate Division of the Circuit Court, and by the Connecticut Supreme Court." (link), while Bork "was a circuit judge for the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit" (link), so it would appear that Bork never dealt with this case, but I am not sure.

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .