>
>Yes, but we are talking about rights here, and rights
>means Constitutional principles, which entails
>judicial review.
>
No. Not all legal rights are constitutional. Your right to to experience racial discrimination at work is statutory. Not all constitutional right involve countermajoritarian review. The state action reviewed in a police brutality case is that of the cops, not the majority.
>
>Given that Madison was on the losing side of that
>case, I do not see why you would conclude that.
A terrible argument. Madison didn't take a position (in the case) on
judicial review, and if he had, you can't assume that he wasa ctinga s
anything but an advocate. His considered views are in the Federalist. There
he and Hamilton seem to indicate that they believe in JR.
>"In so far"....look at the Supremes now and tell me if
>your point still applies. Just look at the ADA and
>voting rights cases, wait uintil the affirmative
>action cases get there and tell me in they are
>"preventing the disenfrancisement of minorities" Look
>at Bowers, look at Adarand, look at the death penalty.
> If the court is a democratic insitution only when it
>services a robust democracy, then it ain't democratic
>now.
If your point is that JR may be democratic or not deoending, I agree. It wasn't in the Lochner era, then it was under theWarren couty,a nd now it's mostly not. My point was that it wasn't per se undemocratic.
>
>It may have inspired white activism, but Marshall and
>other African Americans had been fighting the fight
>for some time on the ground.
In the courts. The activism I was thinking of what not exactly white--things like the Montgomery Bus Boycott.
I agree with you though
>
>However, Brown gave civil rights
> > the
> > >legitimacy of law, which matters to the mushy
> > middle.
> >
> > And matters to making it effective!
>
>that the current court would undo.
>
Some and some.
jks
_________________________________________________________________ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com