The supreme court has generally been consistent in its protection of the right to privacy. true or false

That statement is False

Explanation:

The decisions made by the supreme court is heavily influenced by the judge's Subjective  interpretation of the constitution. This means that when one judge stepped down to be replaced by the other, the decision made by the supreme court could be different from the past.

Small example of this would be the decision between Katz v. United States and Dahda v. United States.

Katz v. United States revolved around a criminal who sued the government from eavesdropping his conversation that eventually led to his conviction. The court ruled in the favor of criminal and stated that eavesdropping phone conversation is a violation of privacy.

In a similar of Dahda v. United States on the other hand, the court rules in favor of the government, which allow them to use private information they got from wiretapping for conviction.

you should try adrenaline. it kicks in in situations like this.

idk