Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorFigueroa, Carlos
dc.description.abstractThis article examines the U.S. Supreme Court’s lesser-known educative role as an egalitarian institution within a broader deliberative democratic process. Scholars have argued that the Court’s long asserted power of judicial review, especially in the equal protection and civil rights context, has been an over-reach of the judicial branch’s constitutional authority and responsibilities. Normative and empirical critiques have been centered on the aims of judicial review, and the challenges it poses in American political life. A core issue surrounding these critiques is that Justices are appointed not elected, and thus undermine the principle of majority rule in the U.S. constitutional democratic order. Although these critiques are legitimate in terms of claims about unelected Supreme Court Justices’ seemingly discretionary powers over elected legislative bodies, and the uncertain policy implications of judicial pronouncements on the broader society, there is, nevertheless, a positive application of judicial review as a tool Justices use as part of their educative role overcoming the so-called “counter-majoritarian difficulty.” Through a close reading of oral arguments in Brown vs. Board of Education (1954) and San Antonio vs. Rodriguez (1973)—two landmark cases invoking the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to the federal Constitution—the article shows how appointed Justices adjudicate individual cases on appeal and attempt to educate (through an argumentative, reason-based and question-centered process) citizenlitigants and their legal representatives about the importance of equality, fairness and ethical responsibility even prior to rendering final decisions on policy controversies that have broader national social, political and economic implications.en_GB
dc.publisherWydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiegoen_GB
dc.relation.ispartofseriesAnnales. Ethics in Economic Life;4
dc.rightsThis work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License.en_GB
dc.subjecteducative courten_GB
dc.subjectdeliberative democracyen_GB
dc.subjectjudicial reviewen_GB
dc.subjectU.S. Supreme Courten_GB
dc.subjectethical responsibilityen_GB
dc.titleU.S. Supreme Court in the civil rights era: Deliberative Democracy and its educative institutional role, 1950s–1970sen_GB
dc.contributor.authorAffiliationIthaca College, Politics Department, School of Humanities and Sciences
dc.referencesAbraham, H. J. (1994). The judiciary: The Supreme Court in the governmental process (9th Ed.). Madison, WI: Brown & Benchmark Publishers.en_GB
dc.referencesAbraham, H. J., & Perry, B. A. (2003). Freedom & The Court: Civil rights and liberties in the United States (8th Ed). Lawrence, Kansas: University of Kansas Press.en_GB
dc.referencesAckerman, B. (1991). We the People foundations. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.en_GB
dc.referencesAraiza, W., Haddon, P. A., & Roberts, D. E. (2006). Constitutional law: Cases, history, and dialogues. LexisNexis.en_GB
dc.referencesBesson, S., & Marti, J. L. (Eds.) (2006). Deliberative democracy and its discontents. Aldershot, Burlington: Ashgate.en_GB
dc.referencesBickel, A. (1968). The least dangerous branch: The Supreme Court at the bar of politics (2nd Ed.). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.en_GB
dc.referencesBrennan, Jr., W. J. (1972). Inside view of the High Court. In L. W. Levy (Ed.), The Supreme Court under Earl Warren. New York, NY: Quadrangle Books.en_GB
dc.referencesBrinkley, A. (1993). The affluent society, the unfinished nation: A concise history of the American people. New York, NY: Alfred A. Knopf.en_GB
dc.referencesBrown v. Board of Education. (1954). 347 U.S. 483.en_GB
dc.referencesDahl, R. (1957). Decision-Making in a democracy: The Supreme Court as a national policy-maker. Journal of Public Law, 6(1957), 279–295.en_GB
dc.referencesDavis, A. L., & Graham, B. L. (1995). The Supreme Court, race, and civil rights: From Marshall to Rehnquist. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.en_GB
dc.referencesEisgruber, C. (1962). Is the Supreme Court an educative institution? New York University Law Review, 961(1962).en_GB
dc.referencesEly, J. H. (1980). Democracy and distrust: A theory of judicial review. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.en_GB
dc.referencesEpstein, L., Knight, J., & Martin, A. (2001). The Supreme Court as a strategic national policymaker. Emory Law Journal, 50, 583–611.en_GB
dc.referencesFigueroa, C. (2014). Book Foreword (Politics). In T. Broadwick, You’re not listening and other plays (pp. ix-xi). Southlake, TX: Fountainhead Press.en_GB
dc.referencesFisher, L. (1999). American constitutional law (3rd Ed.). Durham, N.C.: Caroline Academic Press.en_GB
dc.referencesFriedman, L. (1969). Argument: The oral argument before the Supreme Court in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 1952–1955. New York, NY: Chelsea House Publishers.en_GB
dc.referencesFrisch, M. J., & Stevens, R. G. (1973). Felix Frankfurter (1882–1965). The political thought of American statesmen: Selected writings and speeches. Illinois: F. E. Peacock Publishers.en_GB
dc.referencesFunston, R. (1978). A vital national seminar: The Supreme Court in American political life. Palo Alto, California: Mayfield Publishing Company.en_GB
dc.referencesGambitta, R. A. (1992). San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez. In K. L. Hall (Ed.) The Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of the United States (pp. 753–754). Oxford University Press.en_GB
dc.referencesGammon, T. E. (1977). Equal protection of the law and San Antonio Independent School District V. Rodriguez. Valparaiso University Law Review, 11(3), 435–472.en_GB
dc.referencesGoldstein, L. F. (1987). Judicial review and democratic theory: Guardian Democracy vs. Representative Democracy. Western Political Quarterly, 40(3), September, 391–412.en_GB
dc.referencesGuitton, S., & Irons, P. (1993). May it please the court: The most significant oral arguments made before the Supreme Court since 1955. New York, NY: New Press.en_GB
dc.referencesHollinger, D. A. (1979). Historians and the discourse of intellectuals. In J. Higham, & P. K. Conkin (Eds.), New directions in American intellectual history (pp. 42–63). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.en_GB
dc.referencesHugh, W. (2002). Five types of legal arguments. Durham, NC.en_GB
dc.referencesKeynes, E. (1991). Democracy, judicial review, and the war powers. Undeclared war: Twilight zone of constitutional power. University Park, PA: Penn State Press.en_GB
dc.referencesKunsch, K. (1994). Standard of review (state and federal): A primer. Seattle University Law Review, 18(11), 11–49.en_GB
dc.referencesLandynski, J. W. (1982). Fundamental Individual Rights and Public Policy in the New Supreme Court (The Annual Paley Lectures in American Civilization). Jerusalem: The Magnus Press, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem.en_GB
dc.referencesLandynski, J. W., & Padover, S. K. (1983). The living U.S. constitution (2nd Ed.). New York, NY: New American Library.en_GB
dc.referencesLevinson, S. (2000). Preface to Third Edition. In R. G. McCloskey (Ed.). The American Supreme Court (pp. ix–xi). University of Chicago Press.en_GB
dc.referencesMarsh, D., Ercan, S. A., & Furlong, P. (2017). A skin, not a sweater: Ontology and epistemology in Political Science. In V. Lowndes, D. Marsh, & G. Stoker, Theory and methods in political science (4th Ed.) (pp. 177–198). London: Palgrave.en_GB
dc.referencesMarti, J. L. (2017). Pluralism and consensus in deliberative democracy. Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy, 20(5), 556–579.en_GB
dc.referencesMcCloskey, R. (2000). American Supreme Court. University of Chicago Press.en_GB
dc.referencesMouffe, C. (1999). Deliberative democracy or agonistic pluralism? Social Research, 66(3), 745–758.en_GB
dc.referencesMouffe, C. (2005). The return of the political. London and New York: Verso Books.en_GB
dc.referencesO’Brien, D. (2003). Constitutional Law and politics: Civil rights and liberties, (vol. 2, 5th Ed.). New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Company.en_GB
dc.referencesPerreti, T. J. (1999). Whither the court and constitution? In Defense of a Political Court (pp. 229–230). Princeton University Press.en_GB
dc.referencesPowell, H. J. (1985). The original understanding of original intent. Harvard Law Review, 98(5), 885–948.en_GB
dc.referencesRakove, J. N. (1996). Original meanings: Politics and Ideas in the making of the constitution. New York, NY: Alfred A. Knopf.en_GB
dc.referencesRakove, J. N. (Eds.). (1990). Interpreting the constitution: The debate over original intent. Boston, MA: Northeastern University Press.en_GB
dc.referencesReed, Jr., A. (2004). Beyond Black, White and Brown: A Forum. The Nation April 15.en_GB
dc.referencesReport of the Study Group on the Caseload of the Supreme Court, 57 F.R.D. (1972), p. 573.en_GB
dc.referencesRosenberg, G. N. (1993). The hollow hope: Can courts bring about social change. University of Chicago Press.en_GB
dc.referencesRostow, E. V. (1952). The democratic character of judicial review. Harvard Law Review, 66, 193–224.en_GB
dc.referencesSan Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez. (1973). 411 U.S. 1.en_GB
dc.referencesSchmitter, P. C., & Lynn Karl, T. (1996). What democracy is... and is not. In L. Diamond & M. F. Plattner (Eds.), The global resurgence of democracy. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.en_GB
dc.referencesSmith, R. M. (1997). Civic ideals: Conflicting visions of citizenship in U.S. history. Yale University Press.en_GB
dc.referencesSunstein, C. (1993). The partial constitution. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.en_GB
dc.referencesThayer, J. B. (1893). The origin and scope of the American doctrine of constitutional law. Harvard Law Review, 7(3), October 25, 130–156.en_GB
dc.referencesThe Philadelphia Inquirer. (1968, October 4).en_GB
dc.referencesThe Supreme Court of the United States, October 1971 Term, No. 71-1332, Red Books.en_GB
dc.referencesThompson, D. F. (2008). Deliberative democratic theory and empirical political science. Annual Review of Political Science, 11, 497–520.en_GB
dc.referencesTushnet, M. (1999). Taking the constitution away from the courts. Princeton University Press.en_GB
dc.referencesUnited States v. Carolene Products Co. (1939). 304 U.S. 144.en_GB
dc.referencesVoeten, E. (2014, September 12). Judges as principled politicians. The Washington Post.en_GB
dc.referencesWhittington, K. E. (2009). Political foundations of judicial supremacy: The presidency, the Supreme Court, and constitutional leadership in U.S. History. Princeton University Press.en_GB
dc.referencesZinn, H. (1995). A people’s history of the United States. New York: HarperCollins.en_GB

Files in this item


This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License.
Except where otherwise noted, this item's license is described as This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License.