litigation and politics

[Michael Perelman]

Could it be better to say that they did not connect with the activists who
were mobilized and that their joint efforts could have reinforced each
other?  In the case of the civil rights movement, Marshall was more
effective because of the presence of, say, Malcolm X.

On Wed, Jan 16, 2002 at 05:25:16PM -0500, Doug Henwood wrote:
> Heer, Jeet wrote:
> 
> >Toobin's comments strike me as historically short-sighted. Did liberals
> >invent judicial activism? What about all the conservative decisions of the
> >19th and early 20th century, upholding segregation and striking down social
> >reforms? The period from the 1950s to the early 1970s was only a small
> >liberal island in a sea of judicial conservatism, I would argue.
> 
> Your earlier examples blocked political reform. Toobin - making a 
> point I've made myself, which is why I felt so moved to quote him - 
> is talking about how liberals used the courts to accomplish political 
> reform without mobilizing activists, voters, and legislators. 
> Reactionaries have always used courts to block mobilizations - but 
> the innovation was to use litigation as a substitute for 
> mobilization. It seems the reproductive rights movement in the U.S. 
> has almost no other strategy besides this right now.
> 
> Doug

-- 
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929

Tel. 530-898-5321
E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu