the courts are a tool of the powerful, as is the rest of the US govt. this record goes back two centuries. this doesn't mean 100 percent of court decisions go in favor of the powerful; that's not necessary to protect the status quo.
if, indeed, nathan's point is that reliance on courts for political progress is dubious, the fact the situation is worse now than before is easy to see. when there's a decision that looks like it may be a bit progressive, it's usually 1/2 assed at best, as one can see reading the dissents, leaving various issues hanging, undecided, or rights simply destroyed.
Elaine Cassel's blog highlights this fact continuously: http://babelogue.citypages.com:8080/
articles on counterpunch.org tear apart the Supremes, and often local courts.
Articles on findlaw.com are loaded with analysis of US supreme court decisions and their flaws.
the courts are a political animal. politics is controlled by the oligarchy. this power wasn't "granted" to the courts; it was taken by the supreme court going back to marbury v madison.
one must bear in mind, the founding fathers disliked democracy, often with a passion. jefferson said, ""We in America do not have government by the majority. We have government by the majority who participate." you know who the US constitution allowed to "participate" in jefferson's day.
the 9/11 commission report, in its infinite wisdom and limited review of facts, stated, in effect, the problem is with the "system." they probably meant the intelligence system generally. their conclusion can be expanded to explain a lot of problems the US has: the problem is with the entire system of govt, particularly its committed, centuries old marriage to corruption. this is one marriage, charles, that won't end in divorce.
as i believe i've written before, the problems confronting the US will not be solved by top down approaches. or by the middle class. change must come from the grass roots and be focused by emerging grass roots leaders -- who tend to get killed by the power elite. this is repeatedly demonstrated by US history: trying to effect change through the courts, or the political system, particularly now they've been stacked by the right wing, is futile.
R
At 08:58 AM 8/3/2004, you wrote:
>From: Miles Jackson
>
>
>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
>
>^^^^
>
>To an extent ,it depends on whose on the supreme courts at the time. I
>wouldn't want to take anything to the Michigan Supreme Court right now.
>
> On the other hand, this U.S. Supreme Court, which is pretty rightwing,
>struck down the Texas sodomy law recently.
>
>On a related topic, what is the left's position on marriage in general ? 50%
>or so of marriages become divorces. Is the institution of marriage still
>male supremacist ?
>
>Charles
>
>
>___________________________________
>http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk