Hollow Hope?

Hi,

Long time reader, first time blogger here.

Although I have not yet finished the reading, the topic itself is galvanizing for me and of what I have read so far, I felt I had to post.

I am under the impression, so far, that Rosenberg is under the impression that courts (and the Supreme Court) have not been and are currently not a good vehicle for social change, using, among other things, the notion that courts are "political" institutions and are therefore not influenced by the public (at least in comparison to other institutions). He may be accurate to some extent, but he seems to suggest that our understanding of courts and their abilities to create social change is overestimated/exaggerated and should be disabused. Of course, Rosenberg shall be the great disabuser... Yikes, not for me he won't. (I will continue to have an open mind though as I read further)

Perhaps he starts to cover it in the reading, but right now I several criticisms.

First, the SC is not necessarily intended to function as a means for social change. Its simply not its purpose. So, to suggest that the Court is not good at it, or has dne a poor job of it in the past, is rediculous to me.

Secondly, as it turns out, and Im sure Rosenberg is well aware, the Court created its own role in Marbury v. Madison (1803) essentially giving themselves the power to strike down federal legislation. We have since accepted this role, and for the most part, like it. My point is that its very essence is about NOT allowing certain legislation to pass when it (legislation) stomps on the faces of the minority. At least, this is what "active" courts have done, and this, in my humble opinion, is what they SHOULD do. i.e. be active only when the majority, with their elected officials, decide to pass legislation that tramples on the minority in horendous ways. Segregation is an example that comes to mind.

Third: The Court has indeed created Social change. Rulings have had unintended consequences of course, but nevertheless, they have been "active" when necessary (and perhapds not enough) and created social change. The Miranda ruling, for example, had immediate effects on police departments and the justice process. I will hold off for now, because I am probably digging a deep hole for myself, but if people are interested, I highly rec. a book called "The Least Dangerous Branch?". This covers several public policy areas where the Court indeed had an impact and created social change (along with a lot of consequences) but it also discusses how such rulings disabuse the majority and our represetatives. I hope I made some point in this rambling, however "hollow" it may be. See everyone in class.

Davey