Group__2_Becker - Group Secretary: Josh Becker Group...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Group Secretary: Josh Becker Group Members: Ryan Perry, John Jennings, Teddy Degenhardt, Marcus Hardy After discussion, my group reached the consensus opinion that Rosenberg’s depiction of our judicial system as a constrained court is inaccurate. Rosenberg claims that the Supreme Court cannot be an effective producer of significant social reform. According to Rosenberg, significant social reform is defined as policy change with a nationwide impact that alters bureaucratic and institutional practice to affect the lives of a large class of individuals. While we agree with Rosenberg that this is a fair standard because significant implies that it will impact the nation as a whole and not just one part, we disagree that the court is not able to enact this type of change. Rosenberg is not entirely wrong and there are a number of strengths to his model. The courts are constitutionally limited in their ability to implement and enforce their decisions. However, while limited, the Supreme Court can still bring about social reform.
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Image of page 2
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Page1 / 2

Group__2_Becker - Group Secretary: Josh Becker Group...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 2. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online