That changed in the 1980s when Reagan packed the federal judiciary and the last survivors of the Warren-Brennan era (most of whom were Republicans BTW) died off or retired. Nonetheless, many liberals and progressives still believe that the courts are, or can be, defenders of our constitutional, human and economic rights. - such naive folks are probably the only people who actually took High School civics seriously.
As I alluded to in my comments, that belief has always served as the last line of defense for supporters of Democrat Party defenders to sell their candidtate to the grassroots. If nothing else works, talk about the court! Often it succeeds in keeping the party faithful in line. However, this recent case and the leading role of Stephen Breyer suggests the "save the court" claim is just another bill of goods.
Given the conservative nature of the court as an institution and the amount of time it takes to change personnel, the political character of the Federal Court system will be likely the last institution to feel the effect any meaningful social change.
As to voting, I vote Green. SR
-------------- Original message -------------- From: "Wojtek Sokolowski" <sokol at jhu.edu>
>
>
> [WS:] So what do you propose instead? Not voting at all?
>
> While it is true that the power of business in this country is enormous and
> thoroughly poisonous to public interests and democracy, it is not absolute
> and does create some space for maneuver. And while it is true that both
> political parties are thoroughly servile to business interests - for
> otherwise they would be simply wiped out of existence - that servility is
> not absolute and creates some room for dissent. Given that, Democrats are
> more likely to use whatever little space and ability they have to protect
> public interest against business predators.
-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <../attachments/20070222/e128bcdc/attachment.htm>