The problem is that Reid’s comments are not criticism. He just offered a personal attack, basically calling him stupid and incompetent with no supporting argument whatever.
Reid is not exactly the sharpest knife in the drawer. I suspect the reason he couldn’t substantiate the attack is he has never read an opinion and is just going off his talking points.
If he wants to offer an intelligent criticism of a particular opinion, then I would form a different conclusion. My guess is such an approach is way beyond Reid’s expertise, so he just calls Thomas stupid. Gee, that is deep.
"How is it different? If I have a right to be free from unreasonable search, doesn’t that mean I have the right to privacy? "
No, it means you have the right to be free from the Govt. looking into certain aspects of your life in connection to criminal actions without appropriate warrants, court orders, etc. Right to privacy includes a much wider scope of ideas. Maybe unreasonable search would be a subset of privacy. Right to privacy includes things like your SSN and the right not to have your neighbors peek into your bedroom which aren’t part of search and seizure.
I think you’re looking at the right to privacy in a larger scope than I am. I assumed we were talking about the right to privacy from government. Obviously, I don’t think there’s any Constitutional guarantee against peeping toms.
Well, there’s also not any Constitutional guarantee that your Social Security Number will be kept from identity theives, or that medical information will be kept private, etc. Certainly the word “search” can be extended to many many things, and has been interpreted to include certain electronic communications, telephone records, etc, none of which are included in the Constitution, for obvious reasons. Right to privacy encompasses a broad variety of things, not just search and seizure, and if someone says that you can’t find the “right to privacy” in the Consitution, they’d be right.