-Nathan, no one, and especially not me, argues that that judiciary does not -matter. But here's one for you: how much are Ginsberg and Breyer worth if we -pay with the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, the end of -"welfare as we know it," GATT and NAFTA? Just for starters with Clinton -initiatives. --jks
No, not you, but others do maintain that it makes little difference. Michael Moore promoted the idea that it would make little difference in his emails supporting Nader. And others on this list seconded the idea.
As for GATT, NAFTA and welfare reform- here's the big difference. If progressives win elections, we can reverse those.
The Supreme Court, however, can block whole ranges of legislation from being enacted even if progressives gain legislative wins. Progressives pass the Burma law in Massachusetts only to see it overturned. New Jersey progressives pass a ban on discrimination against gays, only to see the Supreme Court strike it down as applied to the boy scouts. Progressives pass local land use laws only to see the Supreme Court strike them down as unconstitutional takings. Progressives in Congress pass the Violence Against Women Act and see its civil suit components struck down by the Court.
The Supreme Court can increasingly make any election irrelevant, since no regulation will be able to be passed unless corporations are fully compensated for their foregone profits, making such regulation economically impossible. I frankly think the threat of the Supreme Court is understated, not overhyped, since people focus too much on the social issues like abortion - where the conservatives have not won a solid majority - as opposed to the core economic and federalism issues where there is an increasingly solid 5-4 majority for undoing large swathes of progressive legislation.
-- Nathan Newman