posc 130 midterm (final cut)

posc 130 midterm (final cut) - Weston Rowland Jesse Mills...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Weston Rowland Jesse Mills POSC 130G 26 October 2010 2010 Take Home Midterm Repeat Players - Summery: The Repeat Player is second part of a legal typology presented in Mark Galanter’s “Why the Halves Come Out Ahead.” The RP is “a unit which has had and anticipates repeat litigation has low stakes in the outcome in any single case and has the resources to pursue its long term interests” (Galanter 162). Unions, Prosecutors, the I.R.S. and Firms are all examples of RP’s. In contrast the One Shotters are individuals who typically have high stakes and typically fewer resources. Galanter’s claim is essentially that over time the RPs tend to come out ahead as a result of their relative advantages over OSs. Significance The OS v RP distinction is an example of how those with prior advantages tend to ascertain a “position of advantage in the configuration of contending parties” thus their advantages tend to be “augmented and reinforced thereby” (Galanter 164). This relationship casts deep shadows on some of our fundamental beliefs about the courts and its promises. Mainly it exposes the hypocrisy of the courts claim of neutrality when institutional favoritism and resource distribution create anything but neutrality. In other words Galanter’s essay presents a fundamental breakdown in the logic of the triad and the general incapacity of the courts to provide neutral conflict resolution Brown V Board -Summery: The case of Brown V Board can be looked at as case study in how the court corrects political failures. The impetus for Brown v Board began in the political sphere in the form of interest group politics, however this arena put civil rights activists at a disadvantage as they did not vote nor have enough resources to garnish political support. In order
Background image of page 1

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

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Rowland 2 for civil rights movement to move forward two things had to happen. First they would have to get more supporters. Second they would have shift the issue to the policy making arena. To do this they first made their struggle public second they moved the battle from congress to the courts, in the courts they moved slowly but deliberately and eventually got separate but equal declared unconstitutional. Once Brown v Board was decided civil rights became the law and thus the benefits (upholding the law) became diffuse. Significance: First Brown v Board is the textbook example of how one moves from client politics to majoritarian politics in Wilson and Dilulio’s model. Second Brown v Board is keystone in the argument for the dynamic court view. At its core Brown v Board was a policy issue sorted out in the courts thus making it a prime example of the courts dynamically correcting political failure The Dynamic Court View -Summery: the dynamic court view or DCV is part of a dichotomy with its opposing side being the constrained court view or CCV. In brief the CCV says that courts are limited by the construction of laws, an inability to set their agenda, their relation to the other branches and popular sentiment. The DCV responds to this by saying doctrinally the
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

Page1 / 7

posc 130 midterm (final cut) - Weston Rowland Jesse Mills...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

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