What do you think?
Rate this book
The Hollow Hope: Can Courts Bring About Social Change?
Liberals have acclaimed, and conservatives decried, reliance on courts as tools for changes. But while debate rages over whether the courts should be playing such a legislative role, Gerald N. Rosenberg poses a far more fundamental question— can courts produce political and social reform?
Rosenberg presents, with remarkable skill, an overwhelming case that efforts to use the courts to generate significant reforms in civil rights, abortion, and women's rights were largely failures.
"The real strength of The Hollow Hope . . . is its resuscitation of American Politics—the old-fashioned representative kind—as a valid instrument of social change. Indeed, the flip side of Mr. Rosenberg's argument that courts don't do all that much is the refreshing view that politics in the best sense of the word—as deliberation and choice over economic and social changes, as well as over moral issues—is still the core of what makes America the great nation it is. . . . A book worth reading."—Gary L. McDowell, The Washington Times
Rosenberg presents, with remarkable skill, an overwhelming case that efforts to use the courts to generate significant reforms in civil rights, abortion, and women's rights were largely failures.
"The real strength of The Hollow Hope . . . is its resuscitation of American Politics—the old-fashioned representative kind—as a valid instrument of social change. Indeed, the flip side of Mr. Rosenberg's argument that courts don't do all that much is the refreshing view that politics in the best sense of the word—as deliberation and choice over economic and social changes, as well as over moral issues—is still the core of what makes America the great nation it is. . . . A book worth reading."—Gary L. McDowell, The Washington Times
432 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1991
24 people are currently reading
567 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 18 of 18 reviews
February 1, 2023
A treatise on why liberal activist courts aren’t as effective at autonomously producing social change as some claim (and many hope). This one hurt my brain, but largely in a good way. I’ll admit up front that towards the third application (on the environment) of the research design I started skimming a bit. It’s… dense, and I’m sure that in the sea of numbers he spits out there are some flawed methodologies, it’s almost a given since he seeks to measure a lot of fluffy, intangible data points.
But I thought Rosenberg’s explanations were clear. Particularly enjoyed his commentary on the instinct of courts towards self-preservation and norms (which would be useful reading for any aspiring legal pundit). Will be taking to heart his warning towards lawyers who rely on litigation as a means of change to the detriment of the overall movement, particularly as it pertains to popular right-wing resistance in the wake of left-of-center court decisions.
Have been trying to think about this in light of the 2022 SCOTUS term given that Rosenberg’s definition of “social change” was a little murky — not sure and am not going back to see if there was any notion of “progressive” attached to it. Would enjoy someone smarter than me writing about it and spoon feeding me the answer - have skimmed some law review articles on Obergefell to see what the academy had to say but there wasn’t a lot to sink my teeth into
But I thought Rosenberg’s explanations were clear. Particularly enjoyed his commentary on the instinct of courts towards self-preservation and norms (which would be useful reading for any aspiring legal pundit). Will be taking to heart his warning towards lawyers who rely on litigation as a means of change to the detriment of the overall movement, particularly as it pertains to popular right-wing resistance in the wake of left-of-center court decisions.
Have been trying to think about this in light of the 2022 SCOTUS term given that Rosenberg’s definition of “social change” was a little murky — not sure and am not going back to see if there was any notion of “progressive” attached to it. Would enjoy someone smarter than me writing about it and spoon feeding me the answer - have skimmed some law review articles on Obergefell to see what the academy had to say but there wasn’t a lot to sink my teeth into
November 6, 2012
In The Hollow Hope, Gerald N. Rosenberg’s detailed and fascinating study of the Supreme Court, he attempts to answer the question of whether the Court, or any court, can be an effective instrument for social change. To examine this question, Rosenberg first looks at two standard views of the Court: the Constrained Court and the Dynamic Court. The Constrained Court views “the courts as weak, ineffective, and powerless.” The Dynamic Court views the courts as “powerful, vigorous, and potent proponents of change.” To these two views, Rosenberg offers a middle road which he calls constraints and conditions. Change, especially social change, can occur if the Court can overcome the constraints he states along with the presence of one of more of the conditions being present. There are three constraints:
1. “The bounded nature of constitutional rights prevents courts from hearing or effectively acting on many significant social reform claims, and lessens the chances of popular mobilization.”
2. “The judiciary lacks the necessary independence from the other branches of government to produce significant social reform.”
3. “Courts lack the tools to readily develop appropriate policies and implement decisions ordering significant social reform.”
These three constraints must be overcome in order for the Court to implement social reform. In order to overcome one or all of these, Rosenberg argues that one, if not all, of the following conditions must be present:
1. “Courts may effectively produce significant social reform when other actors offer positive incentives to induce compliance.”
2. “Courts may effectively produce significant social reform when other actors impose costs to induce compliance.”
3. “Courts may effectively produce significant social reform when judicial decisions can be implemented by the market.”
4. “Courts may effectively produce significant social reform by providing leverage, or a shield, cover, or excuse, for persons crucial to implementation who are willing to act.”
Once Rosenberg has stated his constraints and conditions, he then turns to examining the two decisions often hailed as producing significant social reform: Brown v. Board of
Education (1954) and Roe v. Wade (1973). The first section of the book examines in great detail the evidence for the Civil Rights Movement and the part the Brown decision had on it. By carefully looking at the actions of Congress, the Executive Branch, Southern state legislatures and government officials, the print media, and other actors following the Brown decision, he finds very little evidence that Brown did much to help foster the Civil Rights Movement. In fact, little was done in implementing the decision until the passage by Congress of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. These followed the Freedom Riders and sit-in protests by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and others. So, even though Brown was a significant decision, it did little in and of itself to foster racial equality. It wasn’t until 10 years later that Congress and the Executive Branch took any real action. Brown was not the great decision that Dynamic Court believers wished it to be.
Turning to the abortion decision, Roe v. Wade, Rosenberg finds that prior to the decision, many states were already liberalizing their abortion laws. In fact, the number of abortions were higher in the late 1960s/early 1970s prior to Roe than afterwards. There could even be an argument made that the Roe decision helped to mobilize the anti-abortion forces. The one valuable result from the decision is that because the decision did not restrict abortions to being performed at hospitals, it opened the path for numerous clinics to provide abortion services. This was critical in that, even after Roe legalized abortions, many hospitals continued to refuse to perform them. Roe also was not a win for the Dynamic Court view, but it wasn’t a total win for the Constrained Court view either. It falls into the middle ground, called the Constraints and Conditions View.
Following these two major cases and their impact, Rosenberg looks briefly at several other Court decisions involving women’s rights, the environment, and criminal rights. In all of these, he finds that his middle of the road view seems to best explain the impact of the Court’s decisions. He also argues that in these areas, especially women’s rights and environmental issues, that the reliance on the courts as opposed to political activism may have actually harmed these causes.
The Hollow Hope, first published in 1991, provides a fascinating study of whether the courts can provide an impetus for social change. Although the answer is depressingly bleak for advocates that the Court can institute significant social change, the book still collects a tremendous amount of data and offers cogent explanations of what all the data means. Maybe the Court isn’t the best branch of the government to institute social reform, but it still can provide legitimacy to the change when another actor decides to attempt it. I highly recommend the book for anyone interested in the impact the Court has on our lives. I would love to see an updating of Rosenberg’s research. And for those dismayed at the direction of our current Court, perhaps this book offers some consolation in that maybe, in the long-run, what the Court decides has only a limited impact on us.
1. “The bounded nature of constitutional rights prevents courts from hearing or effectively acting on many significant social reform claims, and lessens the chances of popular mobilization.”
2. “The judiciary lacks the necessary independence from the other branches of government to produce significant social reform.”
3. “Courts lack the tools to readily develop appropriate policies and implement decisions ordering significant social reform.”
These three constraints must be overcome in order for the Court to implement social reform. In order to overcome one or all of these, Rosenberg argues that one, if not all, of the following conditions must be present:
1. “Courts may effectively produce significant social reform when other actors offer positive incentives to induce compliance.”
2. “Courts may effectively produce significant social reform when other actors impose costs to induce compliance.”
3. “Courts may effectively produce significant social reform when judicial decisions can be implemented by the market.”
4. “Courts may effectively produce significant social reform by providing leverage, or a shield, cover, or excuse, for persons crucial to implementation who are willing to act.”
Once Rosenberg has stated his constraints and conditions, he then turns to examining the two decisions often hailed as producing significant social reform: Brown v. Board of
Education (1954) and Roe v. Wade (1973). The first section of the book examines in great detail the evidence for the Civil Rights Movement and the part the Brown decision had on it. By carefully looking at the actions of Congress, the Executive Branch, Southern state legislatures and government officials, the print media, and other actors following the Brown decision, he finds very little evidence that Brown did much to help foster the Civil Rights Movement. In fact, little was done in implementing the decision until the passage by Congress of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. These followed the Freedom Riders and sit-in protests by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and others. So, even though Brown was a significant decision, it did little in and of itself to foster racial equality. It wasn’t until 10 years later that Congress and the Executive Branch took any real action. Brown was not the great decision that Dynamic Court believers wished it to be.
Turning to the abortion decision, Roe v. Wade, Rosenberg finds that prior to the decision, many states were already liberalizing their abortion laws. In fact, the number of abortions were higher in the late 1960s/early 1970s prior to Roe than afterwards. There could even be an argument made that the Roe decision helped to mobilize the anti-abortion forces. The one valuable result from the decision is that because the decision did not restrict abortions to being performed at hospitals, it opened the path for numerous clinics to provide abortion services. This was critical in that, even after Roe legalized abortions, many hospitals continued to refuse to perform them. Roe also was not a win for the Dynamic Court view, but it wasn’t a total win for the Constrained Court view either. It falls into the middle ground, called the Constraints and Conditions View.
Following these two major cases and their impact, Rosenberg looks briefly at several other Court decisions involving women’s rights, the environment, and criminal rights. In all of these, he finds that his middle of the road view seems to best explain the impact of the Court’s decisions. He also argues that in these areas, especially women’s rights and environmental issues, that the reliance on the courts as opposed to political activism may have actually harmed these causes.
The Hollow Hope, first published in 1991, provides a fascinating study of whether the courts can provide an impetus for social change. Although the answer is depressingly bleak for advocates that the Court can institute significant social change, the book still collects a tremendous amount of data and offers cogent explanations of what all the data means. Maybe the Court isn’t the best branch of the government to institute social reform, but it still can provide legitimacy to the change when another actor decides to attempt it. I highly recommend the book for anyone interested in the impact the Court has on our lives. I would love to see an updating of Rosenberg’s research. And for those dismayed at the direction of our current Court, perhaps this book offers some consolation in that maybe, in the long-run, what the Court decides has only a limited impact on us.
May 7, 2010
In this book Rosenberg makes a well-argued case that the great Supreme Court cases of the 20th century, especially Brown v. Board of Education and Roe v. Wade, had no real substantive effect on American society.
He also makes his point about the "Constrained Court" in other fields, including environmental law, legislative reapportionment, criminal procedure, and women's rights, but these are, he fully admits, sketchily examined.
The heart of the book, and certainly the most convincing part, is Rosenberg's fantastic dissection of the effect of the courts on the Civil Rights movement. He brings up every possible effect claimed by Brown's proponents and knocks them down one by one with detailed statistical analysis. Brown apparently didn't lead to any great change in people's attitudes towards segregation (for white Southerners support for desegregated schools actually dropped from about 15 to about 8%, and Southern governors in Brown's wake were notably more recalcitrant about desegregation). Brown didn't lead to any great increase in reporting of civil rights, donations to civil rights groups, membership in civil rights groups, desegregation of any forms of travel (the Supreme Court had ruled against unequal treatment in Pullman cars as early as Mitchell v. US in 1941, and segregated seating on interstate buses in 1946, to almost no effect). In fact, almost anywhere one looks in the field of civil rights, Supreme Court cases met with resistance in the South and deaf ears in Washington (from 1927 to 1953, in the Texas Primary Cases, the Court had tried repeatedly to open up the all-white Democratic Primary to blacks, again they were met with stony silence and resistance). Simple overloaded court dockets were another problem. The Southern Fifth Circuit was so crammed with desegregation cases at the time that the backlog for any sort of remedial action cases could be years.
Rosenberg's point isn't that Brown was bad, but that the Supreme Court, without executive, legislative, or popular support, is almost completely incapable of enforcing its decisions, especially against other governmental bodies. There was almost NO change in Southern school segregation from 1954 to 1965, going from almost no black children in white schools to barely 1% (the border states were perhaps assisted in an already moving desegregation movement by Brown). In 1965, however, with the passage of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, the federal government was given millions of dollars to distribute to local schools, and HEW regulations made distribution contingent on desegregation. After this, the South moved rapidly. Only with this executive and legislative move was the Supreme Court's original goal of desegregation (which Thurgood Marshall claimed after Brown would be mainly complete by 1957) finally achieved.
This book changed the whole way I looked at civil rights, and it also made well-stated, though arguable, claims about abortion and women's rights that deserve consideration (legal abortions in the US were on a sharp upward trend beginning in 1970, and on a graph of such abortions one can hardly see a blip or a change at the 1973 Roe decision).
This book should be read by everybody who hopes to change American society through the courts. Rosenberg shows that they are apparently less effective than both their advocates and their detractors think.
August 1, 2015
It's not often, especially as I get older, that I come across a book that radically changes the way I think about something important. This is one of those few books with that kind of power.
Like most of us, I grew up hearing and believing the notion that major landmark court cases were instrumental in bringing about big changes to our society. The Supreme Court is viewed by partisans of all types as wielding enormous power to restructure our institutions. Decisions like Brown v. Board of Education and Roe v. Wade are historical milestones.
Yet, Rosenberg puts forward an very convincing case that these decisions actually mattered much less than commonly thought. He systematically raises and debunks the arguments that these cases contributed to social change in meaningful ways, instead suggesting that social change is driven by larger societal changes that were already well underway by the time the courts made their rulings.
His argument is strongest when he discusses Brown, which was decided by the court in 1954. Yet, by every conceivable metric, no substantial change occurred around the issue of school integration prior to the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and 1965, a decade later. In the entire intervening period, schools and localities had no trouble skirting the court's decision. What they finally responded to instead were political incentives that those pieces of legislation invented, as well as the sea change in public opinion that was driven by the civil rights movement, and had little or nothing to do with Brown.
He makes a similar, though slightly less convincing case for Roe v. Wade. In the 2008 edition, he has added a chapter making a similar argument around marriage equality, which in my view is the weakest of the examples he puts forward.
So, I'm not as committed to Rosenberg's view as he is, but I still have to acknowledge the power of the argument. When I started the book, I found the premise preposterous. When I finished, I had to recalibrate some of my ideas about the history of the last century in a pretty fundamental way. The Hollow Hope is simply essential reading for anyone concerned with the basics of social change.
Like most of us, I grew up hearing and believing the notion that major landmark court cases were instrumental in bringing about big changes to our society. The Supreme Court is viewed by partisans of all types as wielding enormous power to restructure our institutions. Decisions like Brown v. Board of Education and Roe v. Wade are historical milestones.
Yet, Rosenberg puts forward an very convincing case that these decisions actually mattered much less than commonly thought. He systematically raises and debunks the arguments that these cases contributed to social change in meaningful ways, instead suggesting that social change is driven by larger societal changes that were already well underway by the time the courts made their rulings.
His argument is strongest when he discusses Brown, which was decided by the court in 1954. Yet, by every conceivable metric, no substantial change occurred around the issue of school integration prior to the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and 1965, a decade later. In the entire intervening period, schools and localities had no trouble skirting the court's decision. What they finally responded to instead were political incentives that those pieces of legislation invented, as well as the sea change in public opinion that was driven by the civil rights movement, and had little or nothing to do with Brown.
He makes a similar, though slightly less convincing case for Roe v. Wade. In the 2008 edition, he has added a chapter making a similar argument around marriage equality, which in my view is the weakest of the examples he puts forward.
So, I'm not as committed to Rosenberg's view as he is, but I still have to acknowledge the power of the argument. When I started the book, I found the premise preposterous. When I finished, I had to recalibrate some of my ideas about the history of the last century in a pretty fundamental way. The Hollow Hope is simply essential reading for anyone concerned with the basics of social change.
November 25, 2013
I found this book to be very interesting. It presented a different perspective on the role of courts and social movements. The thesis of the book is that courts are not the catalyst for social change. Rosenberg went though and examined this through looking at various rights battles over the past century. The last section of the book examined the ongoing battle for same sex marriage and the role of the courts. The book is a little long for light reading but it was very interesting. It is an easy read for layperson interested in hearing an alternative theory on the role of the courts as a policy maker.
March 10, 2013
Comprehensive. Rosenberg succeeds in persuading the reader that social change is best accomplished through means other than the Court unless particular (rare) conditions arise that allow for the Court to be an agent of change. While the thesis feels a little simplistic at times, and theoretically inclined readers might be left wanting a little more, there is no doubt that it's an impressive work.
March 6, 2009
This book does an amazing job of showing the why those seeking social change should not pursue their course through the courts. I took Gerry Rosenberg's class at the U of Chicago and really enjoyed his perspective. This is a must-read for anyone involved in policy implementation.
gave-up-on
October 22, 2021 Stopped reading during the introduction because the book is from 1991. An analysis of the court's role in achieving (or not) social/political change that does not account for the last three decades of SCOTUS politicization, obstructionism, and strong elitist / white / Catholic / conservative bias is incomplete in 2021. The courts aren't just putting out substantively different opinions than they used to; they have functionally changed. Sorry to Gerald Rosenberg!
September 24, 2017
Misguided, it seems, but Rosenberg is good at stringing you along within the pseudo-academic style and dredges up thought. Plus what he goes over that was already widely accepted still has worth, I think. It's repetitive, sure, and he uses dubious framing devices, but lays out very clearly, which is of no small value, considering the complexity of the subject matter.
November 1, 2023
Rosenberg sucks
Read
May 9, 2024pretending like I didn't just read the first and last paragraphs of each section...
December 11, 2024
In Federalist 78, Alexander Hamilton said that the judicial branch was the weakest. In Hollow Hope, Gerald N. Rosenberg asks, "If the Supreme Court doesn't have independent policymaking power, can it at least exert its influence on the public opinion to push for a reform?" He claims that it doesn't even do that.
This book is one of the best examples of a hypothesis test where you present a single case study whose outcome can only be described by the failure of the theory being tested (cf. Stephen Van Evera's Guide to Methods for Students of Political Science, chapter 2 "What Are Case Studies?", esp. pp.80-81). It's a method of qualitative research that, when done right, has strong persuasive power.
In this context, if a theory claims that the Supreme Court has social influence, the best case study to test that theory would be the most famous Supreme Court decision in U.S. history, Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, decided 1954. The lore around this decision is that the public schools in the United States desegregated overnight when the Supreme Court unanimously declared that "separate but equal" was unconstitutional. The before-and-after pictures are stark and clear: Southern schools were completely desegregated and we no longer observe desegregation in public schools. It would seem--at least within the public-school educated American consciousness--that this was exactly the incident where the Supreme Court reformed society through its judicious wisdom.
Rosenberg then slaps Figure 2.1 and Table 2.1 on the table to show how fake that myth is. Figure 2.1 is haunting because it shows the percentage of black students attending Southern schools with whites over time. The line hugs zero from 1955 to 1961 when it barely lifts his head and then rises exponentially 1965 onward. Table 2.1 lists the actual numbers; during the 1954-55 school year, Southern schools of mixed race student population had only 0.001 percent black students. The percentage rises only to 1.2 percent in the 1963-64 school year. And if you exclude Texas and Tennessee, the number drops to 0.48 percent. It's nuts because in the bordering states, the share of black students is 54.8 percent. Nothing happened for ten years after Brown v. Board of Education.
The American politics professor who taught the graduate seminar for which I read the book (chapters 1-5, 1st edition) was a student of Rosenberg at Harvard, so he had a couple of juicy anecdotes about the outrage Rosenberg received from law school professors. The UChicago Press's website published Rosenberg's lengthy response to his critics. Here's the banger line towards the bottom:
The third edition of Hollow Hope came out in 2023--an impressive feat for a non-textbook--and includes more case studies. Nonetheless, Rosenberg's conclusion hasn't changed: the Court continues to be the tail and not the dog that wags it.
This book is one of the best examples of a hypothesis test where you present a single case study whose outcome can only be described by the failure of the theory being tested (cf. Stephen Van Evera's Guide to Methods for Students of Political Science, chapter 2 "What Are Case Studies?", esp. pp.80-81). It's a method of qualitative research that, when done right, has strong persuasive power.
In this context, if a theory claims that the Supreme Court has social influence, the best case study to test that theory would be the most famous Supreme Court decision in U.S. history, Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, decided 1954. The lore around this decision is that the public schools in the United States desegregated overnight when the Supreme Court unanimously declared that "separate but equal" was unconstitutional. The before-and-after pictures are stark and clear: Southern schools were completely desegregated and we no longer observe desegregation in public schools. It would seem--at least within the public-school educated American consciousness--that this was exactly the incident where the Supreme Court reformed society through its judicious wisdom.
Rosenberg then slaps Figure 2.1 and Table 2.1 on the table to show how fake that myth is. Figure 2.1 is haunting because it shows the percentage of black students attending Southern schools with whites over time. The line hugs zero from 1955 to 1961 when it barely lifts his head and then rises exponentially 1965 onward. Table 2.1 lists the actual numbers; during the 1954-55 school year, Southern schools of mixed race student population had only 0.001 percent black students. The percentage rises only to 1.2 percent in the 1963-64 school year. And if you exclude Texas and Tennessee, the number drops to 0.48 percent. It's nuts because in the bordering states, the share of black students is 54.8 percent. Nothing happened for ten years after Brown v. Board of Education.
The American politics professor who taught the graduate seminar for which I read the book (chapters 1-5, 1st edition) was a student of Rosenberg at Harvard, so he had a couple of juicy anecdotes about the outrage Rosenberg received from law school professors. The UChicago Press's website published Rosenberg's lengthy response to his critics. Here's the banger line towards the bottom:
[T]he argument of The Hollow Hope never was that radical. What was radical was the belief that litigation could produce significant social reform.
The third edition of Hollow Hope came out in 2023--an impressive feat for a non-textbook--and includes more case studies. Nonetheless, Rosenberg's conclusion hasn't changed: the Court continues to be the tail and not the dog that wags it.
October 30, 2020
Review of eBook
Is it possible for the courts to bring about political and social reform?
Efforts to use the courts to bring about significant changes in social issues such as civil rights, abortion, and women’s rights were largely futile, asserts the author, suggesting that the courts are not the real instrument of social change. Rather, conscious deliberation and choice lie at the center of moral issues and social change.
Comparing the Constrained Court [weak, ineffective, powerless] and the Dynamic Court [vigorous, powerful, proponents of change], the author suggests that change from the courts is dependent upon the bounded nature of constitutional rights, the lack of independence from other branches of the government in order to bring about significant social reform, and the lack of the tools to develop appropriate policies and implement decisions regarding social reform.
A study of Brown vs. the Board of Education [1954] shows that the court’s decision had virtually no effect in actually implementing its decision. In fact, it took several actions outside of the court for school segregation to become the norm. First, Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, followed the next year by the Voting Rights Act and the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. The result of these actions was that significant progress in implementing the decisions of the Brown case took place. Following the 1954 decision, there was negligible change in desegregating schools; when, in 1965, the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare tied funding to desegregating the schools, the move to desegregate was swift.
The text, supplemented with graphs, tables, and charts, also includes several appendices, case references, notes, and other references. Sections include Civil Rights, Abortion, The Environment, Reapportionment, and Criminal Law, and Same-Sex Marriage.
Readers may find the limited power of the court to be a bit surprising, but there is much to consider for those interested in making changes to current policy.
Recommended.
Is it possible for the courts to bring about political and social reform?
Efforts to use the courts to bring about significant changes in social issues such as civil rights, abortion, and women’s rights were largely futile, asserts the author, suggesting that the courts are not the real instrument of social change. Rather, conscious deliberation and choice lie at the center of moral issues and social change.
Comparing the Constrained Court [weak, ineffective, powerless] and the Dynamic Court [vigorous, powerful, proponents of change], the author suggests that change from the courts is dependent upon the bounded nature of constitutional rights, the lack of independence from other branches of the government in order to bring about significant social reform, and the lack of the tools to develop appropriate policies and implement decisions regarding social reform.
A study of Brown vs. the Board of Education [1954] shows that the court’s decision had virtually no effect in actually implementing its decision. In fact, it took several actions outside of the court for school segregation to become the norm. First, Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, followed the next year by the Voting Rights Act and the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. The result of these actions was that significant progress in implementing the decisions of the Brown case took place. Following the 1954 decision, there was negligible change in desegregating schools; when, in 1965, the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare tied funding to desegregating the schools, the move to desegregate was swift.
The text, supplemented with graphs, tables, and charts, also includes several appendices, case references, notes, and other references. Sections include Civil Rights, Abortion, The Environment, Reapportionment, and Criminal Law, and Same-Sex Marriage.
Readers may find the limited power of the court to be a bit surprising, but there is much to consider for those interested in making changes to current policy.
Recommended.
March 17, 2015
Whew, so many pages, for so lazy an author! ...OK, first off, I actually agree with his argument, and if I were reading the first edition of this book, I might have upped the stars to 4. But this is the second edition, which was published in 2008. The first edition was published in 1991. So much has happened on all of the subjects discussed in both editions between those two dates! I know, he really wanted to make a case explaining gay marriage using his theory. Fine. But would it kill him to update the other chapters in the process? We may not be at perfect pay equality yet, but we were certainly much closer in 2008 than we were in 1991. So why are all his citations on the subject still from the 70s and 80s? If really all he cared about was the last chapters, it might have been a better idea for him to just take those chapters and make a separate book. They were certainly long enough that he had justification to do so.
November 22, 2015
Incredibly important book, but it gets less and less persuasive every time I come back to it. I mean, I generally agree with the argument, but the actual content here suffers a bit under the weight of the many critiques that have been made over the past few decades.
June 5, 2012
Not buying the argument that courts did/do not contribute to civil rights
January 6, 2012
Great work that assesses the effectiveness of seeking social change through the courts.
Read
September 2, 2016340.115 R8134 2008
Displaying 1 - 18 of 18 reviews