On Mon, 2 Aug 2004, BklynMagus wrote:
> If the democratic process suddenly came up with a law that Catholics
> or Jews coujld not hold public office, wouldn't you want the courts to
> override such a law? Or is whatever produced by the democratic process
> to be accepted without any counterforce?
I have to say, Nathan's posts over the last few years have made a pretty convincing case that reliance on the courts to achieve political goals is dubious at best. --Look at it this way: if you advocate increasing the political power of the courts, you're encouraging the development and deployment of a political tool that will almost certainly be used against you and your political goals (Justin and Nathan will happily provide many examples of shitty legal decisions that blatantly benefited the powerful at the expense of the downtrodden, democracy be hanged). I think Nathan's point is that the courts are typically a tool of the powerful; thus granting more power to the courts is a questionable political strategy if we're trying to challenge the status quo.
I haven't heard you respond to that point; what do you think?
Miles