What's really at stake regarding Supreme Court Justice selection-Part 1

I have read a recent speech on the subject by a scholar and U.S Senator which should be required reading for anyone who thinks they are well informed on Constitutional matters. To assist in this endeavor, I will print an excerpt from the speech daily until it is complete. If you want to read the speech in its entirety, I will post the link after all the speech has been posted.
Here is the first excerpt from the speech. Can you guess who wrote and gave the speech?

"I would like to begin by reading two quite different quotes to you, each from important jurists.

Jurist #1:

[O]ur laws and tradition afford constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, child rearing, and education... "These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life. Beliefs about these matters could not define the attributes of personhood were they formed under compulsion of the State."

Jurist #2:

Compare the facts in Griswold with a hypothetical suit by an electric utility company ? to void a smoke pollution ordinance as unconstitutional. The cases are identical. In Griswold a husband and wife assert that they wish to have sexual relations without fear of unwanted children.... The electrical company asserts that it wishes to produce electricity at low cost.... There is no principled way to decide... that one form of gratification is more worthy than another.

Now, many of you, including Larry, Walter, and others who helped me prepare for a hearing years ago, know exactly what Law Review article that came from. It will not surprise you to know that I -- and I suspect most of you -- agree with jurist number one. In my opinion, the first quote I read is a much healthier understanding of our Constitution with regard to the respect it affords individuals in making fundamental personal life choices.

There are periods in our country's history when Americans re-examine the essence of our social contract. They have occurred half a dozen times. These periods invariably include debate over the meaning of our "civil bible" -- the Constitution -- because we have relied so much on that document to articulate how we see ourselves as a people and how we see ourselves as a nation.

And let me say at the outset that honest people, bright people, decent and patriotic people have very, very different views on how to read our civil bible.

These re-examinations happened in the Civil War and in the 1930s, and it's happening again in our lifetime, having been going on in earnest since the mid-1980s."

Tomorrow I will put up the next part of the speech. Stay tuned!