Hollow-Hope-Answers

Hollow-Hope-Answers -...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–4. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
9ded89c8274384efc82e3fbe7b22b12ae095f629 Dartmouth 2K9 1 Hollow Hope Updates Last printed 0/0/0000 0:00:00 AM 1
Background image of page 1

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

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
9ded89c8274384efc82e3fbe7b22b12ae095f629 Dartmouth 2K9 2 Courts Don’t Solve Social Change Courts fail to achieve social change on the issue of abortion – empirically proven by Roe v Wade Richard Delgado (Distinguished Professor of Law at the University of Pittsburgh School of Law) October 2008 : A COMMENT ON ROSENBERG'S NEW EDITION OF THE HOLLOW HOPE. Northwestern University Law Review Colloquy. Lexis [*147] Gerald Rosenberg 's new edition of The Hollow Hope n1 repeats his earlier book-length argument against the prospects of social reform through law. n2 Complete with tables, charts, and updated statistics, the new edition replies to his critics and extends his analysis to a number of new areas, including same-sex marriage. n3 The new material reinforces his original conclusion that legal rulings fail to spark social progress not already underway. n4 Therefore, reformers with limited resources and energy should direct their efforts to avenues such as electoral politics, grassroots organizing, and street activism. Nothing is wrong, according to Rosenberg, with pressing for favorable legal rulings, n5 but one should not hold out unrealistic hopes for their efficacy. Roe v. Wade , n6 for example, did little to increase a woman's access to abortion services. n7 Brown v. Board of Education n8 produced a negligible increase in the proportion of black schoolchildren attending integrated schools, and rulings upholding gay marriage, according to the new edition, have yielded similarly unimpressive results. n9 If Rosenberg is right, as I believe he is, regarding the difficulty of achieving social reform through the judicial branch , why is his thesis so [*148] counterintuitive? In this Essay, I aim to accomplish two goals: explain why Rosenberg's analysis seems to fly in the face of common knowledge, and, second, why his argument is nevertheless sound. Doing so will entail explaining a number of mechanisms that inhibit social change. 2
Background image of page 2
9ded89c8274384efc82e3fbe7b22b12ae095f629 Dartmouth 2K9 3 Courts Don’t Solve Patriarchy Courts can’t solve broader women’s rights – even precedent setting decisions fail because courts lack the essential tools to solve for alt. causalities Neal Devins (Associate Professor of Law and Lecturer in Government, College of William and Mary) 1992 : Judicial Matters: The Hollow Hope: Can Courts Bring About Social Change? California Law Review. Lexis The Hollow Hope's assessment of abortion and women's rights, while less detailed and less systematic, reaches similar conclusions. Indeed, Rosenberg uses identical metaphors, speaking of the Court as "join[ing]," "not creat[ing]," "a current of social change and a tide of history " (p. 265). Moreover, like his analysis of civil rights, Rosenberg sees courts as trying to play a leadership role but failing: "As with civil rights . . . the Court is far less responsible for the changes that occurred than most people think
Background image of page 3

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

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Image of page 4
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Page1 / 14

Hollow-Hope-Answers -...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 4. Sign up to view the full document.

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