I'm not sure but this column by Carol Towarnicky of the Philadelphia Daily News has to be close to top.
"Tell me again, what's wrong with "judicial activism"?"
1. It destroys the balance of powers in our government when judges take it upon themselves to create laws from penumbras of emanations.
2. It completely destroy the democratic process.
3. Federal judges, who are completely unaccountable to people, become lawmakers.
4. The founding documents of our country become meaningless if judges are allowed and even encouraged to create new rights and laws out of nothing.
5. The "constitutionality" of our country's laws are based solely on the personal/political opinions of nine rotating lawyers.
6. Judges swear to uphold the Constitution, not their personal opinions.
Towarnicky goes on to list various cases where the right to privacy was created and then later expanded upon including Griswold v. Connecticut, Roe v. Wade and Lawrence v. Texas and then asks, "What would this country look like without it? Many extreme conservatives can't wait to find out."
Our country would look like a democracy where people thru their elected lawmakers made decisions on issues like contraception, abortion, and sodomy instead of a liberal oligarchy.
"The Constitution, after all, doesn't mention privacy. It doesn't expressly forbid states to mandate bedroom behavior. Their reasoning sounds an awful lot like the speeches of today's conservatives.
If that side had won, would the state Legislature have pushed through a law allowing couples to decide on their own whether to use birth control? I don't think so, either."
Do you catch the strong scent of what I would call "uppityism?" Towarnicky feels that the people and their elected lawmakers were too stupid or slow to change a law so therefore it is up to the wise sages of the Supreme Court to change it for them. If the law against contraception was silly back in 1965 (as Towarnicky states earlier) then why wouldn't the state legislature pass a law to allow the use of contraceptives? If the law was so silly, why couldn't the people merely elect lawmakers willing to change it?
"Without a right to privacy, the government again would have the keys to your doors, at least figuratively.
Without it, the courts would be paralyzed, unable to stop the state from stepping across your threshold and into your personal decisions."
Because we all know that before 1965 when the Supreme Court created the right of married couples to use contraceptives, the government was knocking down doors on a whim and the state controlled the population's personal decisions.
With the "right to privacy" and its ever-changing meaning, our democratic process has been paralyzed, unable to pass and sustain laws that reflect the will of the people. if those laws disagree with the personal opinions of various judges.