Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-t6hkb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-16T00:00:56.605Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

2 - Politics and Its Discontents

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 June 2014

Robin L. West
Affiliation:
Georgetown University Law Center
Get access

Summary

Somehow, sometimes, the exercise of political will produces law. People in power – despots, kings, presidents, congressional majorities, legislative committees, superpacs, the wealthy, parliamentarians, senators, representatives or referenda voters – effectuate their will through law, and that law is then followed by others, begrudgingly or not, and sometimes even by the people that produced it. Law is also, commonly, the product of some sort of political process – a despot’s dictate, a state referenda, legislative maneuvering, interest group politics, committee procedure, passage of a bill by both houses followed by an executive’s signature, fiat.

Sometimes that entire process, from the stirring in the heart of the political animal somewhere in the body politic seeking to make a change, to passage and enforcement of an effective law, is entirely admirable, and honorable, even noble. We can think of plenty of examples from our own political history. A social problem afflicting the powerless or voiceless – homelessness, or domestic violence, or poor nutrition, or inadequate educational opportunities for special needs children – is noticed, and then addressed, by a coalition of advocacy groups. Those groups educate the public, who eventually bring it to the attention of legislators, who then, after fact finding and coalition building and bargaining, if need be, enact a law that seeks to ameliorate or even abolish the problem. The result is some legislative enactment – a program that provides housing vouchers for working class and poor people, or the Violence Against Women Act, or the Occupational Safety and Health Act, or the Individualized Disability Educational Act, or nutritional programs for mothers and children – all of which, although all imperfect, nevertheless aim to better the terms of our social welfare net, or more broadly, our social compact. That actually does happen sometimes: individuals, advocacy groups, and legislators are moved by sympathy with co-citizens who are in some measure of distress, and use law as a tool to ameliorate their plight. Sometimes, the process is quite different, but also with laudable ends: the existence of shared pain, or the sufferance of a common injustice, across a swath of the population mobilizes large groups of people who through a combination of civil actions, demonstrations, peaceful disobedience, and street theater manage to spark a social movement, which then cannot help but capture the attention of even thoroughly self-interested legislators; it is in their face, as we say.

Type
Chapter
Information
Teaching Law
Justice, Politics, and the Demands of Professionalism
, pp. 93 - 130
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2013

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Zeiler, Kathryn, “Turning from Damage Caps to Information Disclosure: An Alternative to Tort Reform,” Yale Journal of Healthy Policy, Law, and Ethics 5 (2005), 385Google Scholar
Hyman, David A., Black, Bernard, Zeiler, Kathryn, and Silver, Charles, “The Impact of the 2003 Texas Medical Malpractice Damages Cap on Physician Supply and Insurer Payments: Separating Facts from Rhetoric.” (2008), 25–34
Koenig, Thomas and Rustad, Michael, “The Quiet Revolution Revisited: An Empirical Study of the Impact of State Tort Reform of Punitive Damages in Products Liability,” The Justice System Journal 16 (1993), 21;Google Scholar
Wells, Martin T., “Punitive Awards after BMW, A New Capping System, and the Reported Opinion Bias,” Wisconsin Law Review 1998 (1998)Google Scholar
Gray, John Chipman and Gray, Roland, The Rule against Perpetuities (Boston: Little, Brown 1942)
Freud, Sigmund, Totem and Taboo (New York: Moffat Yard and Co. 1918)
Neitzsche, Friedrich, On the Genealogy of Morality, (New York: Cambridge University Press 1994)
Grey, Thomas C., “Langdell’s Orthodoxy,” University of Pittsburgh Law Review 45 (1983), 1;Google Scholar
Rubin, Edward, “What’s Wrong with Langdell’s Method and What to Do about It,” Vanderbilt Law Review 60 (2007), 609Google Scholar
Grossman, Lewis A., “Langdell Upside Down: James Coolidge Carter and the Anticlassical Jurisprudence of the Anticodification, Yale Law Journal 19 (2007), 149Google Scholar
Holmes, Oliver Wendell, “The Path of the Law,” Harvard Law Review 10 (1897), 457Google Scholar
Llewellyn, Karl N., “Some Realism about Realism – Responding to Dean Pound,” Harvard Law Review 44 (1930), 1222Google Scholar
Cohen, Frank S., “Transcendental Nonsense and the Functional Approach,” Columbia Law Review 35 (1935). 809;Google Scholar
Unger, Roberto Mangabeira, “The Critical Legal Studies Movement”, Harvard Law Review 96 (1983), 561Google Scholar
Gordon, Robert, “Unfreezing Legal Reality: Critical Approaches to Law,” Florida State University Law Review, 15 (1987), 15Google Scholar
Kelman, Mark, A Guide to Critical Legal Studies, (Cambridge: Harvard University Press 1987)
Kennedy, Duncan, “The Structure of Blackstone’s Commentaries,” Buffalo Law Review 28 (1978), 28Google Scholar
Dalton, Clare, “Essay in the Deconstruction of Contract Doctrine,” Yale Law Journal 94 (1985), 997Google Scholar
Fisher, William W., Horwitz, Morton J., and Reed, Thomas A., eds., American Legal Realism (Oxford: Oxford University Press 1993)
Hutchinson, Joseph C., Jr., “The Judgment Intuitive: the Function of the ‘Hunch’ in Judicial Decision,” Cornell Law Quarterly 14 (1928), 274Google Scholar
Frank, Jerome, Law and the Modern Mind (New York: Coward-McCann, Inc. 1930)
Fuller, Lon, “Positivism and Fidelity to Law – A Reply to Professor Hart,” Harvard Law Review 71 (1957), 632Google Scholar
Fuller, Lon, “Mediation – Its Forms and Functions,” Southern California Law Review 44 (1970), 305Google Scholar
Hart, Henry M., Sacks, Albert M., Eskridge, William N., and Frickey, Philip P., The Legal Process: Basic Problems in the Making and Application of Law (New York: Foundation Press 1994)
Dworkin, Ronald, Taking Rights Seriously, (Cambridge: Harvard University Press 1978)
Dworkin, Ronald, Law’s Empire (Cambridge: Harvard University Press 1986)
Dworkin, Ronald M., A Matter of Principle (Cambridge: Harvard University Press 1985)
Peller, Gary, “The Metaphysics of American Law,” California Law Review 73 (1985), 1151Google Scholar
Tushnet, Mark V., Taking the Constitution Away from the Courts (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press 1999)
Levinson, Sanford, Our Undemocratic Constitution: Where the Constitution Goes Wrong (And How We the People Can Correct It) (New York: Oxford University Press 2006)
Seidman, L. M., On Constitutional Disobedience (forthcoming Oxford University Press)
Kramer, Larry, The People Themselves: Popular Constitutionalism and Judicial Review (New York: Oxford University Press 2004)
Waldron, Jeremy, Law and Disagreement (New York: Oxford University Press 1999)
Waldron, Jeremy, “The Core of the Case against Judicial Review,” Yale Law Journal 115 (2005), 1346Google Scholar
West, Robin L., “Unenumerated Duties,” University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law 9 (2006), 221Google Scholar
West, Robin L., “Katrina, the Constitution, and the Legal Question Doctrine,” Chicago-Kent Law Review 81 (2006), 1127Google Scholar
West, Robin L., “The Constitution’s Political Deficit,” Harvard Law and Policy Review (Online) 1 (2006)Google Scholar
West, Robin L., “Toward the Study of the Legislated Constitution,” Ohio State Law Journal 72 (2011), 1343Google Scholar
Blackstone, Sir William, “Introduction,” Section 2, Volume I, Commentaries on the Laws of England (Oxford: Clarendon Press 1765–1769)
Brest, Paul, “Congress as Constitutional Decisionmaker and Its Power to Counter Judicial Doctrine,” Georgia Law Review 21 (1986), 57Google Scholar
Sager, Lawrence G., Justice in Plainclothes: A Theory of American Constitutional Practice (New Haven: Yale University Press 2006)
Sunstein, Cass, The Partial Constitution (Cambridge: Harvard University Press 1993)
West, Robin L., Progressive Constitutionalism: Reconstructing the Fourteenth Amendment (Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press 1994)
Klarman, Michael J., Brown v. Board of Education and the Civil Rights Movement (New York: Oxford University Press 2007)
Klarman, Michael J., From the Closet to the Altar: Courts, Backlash, and the Struggle for Same-Sex Marriage (New York: Oxford University Press 2013)
Rosenberg, Gerald N., The Hollow Hope: Can Courts Bring about Social Change? (2nd ed.) (Chicago: University of Chicago Press 2008)
Mezey, Naomi and Niles, Mark C., “Screening the Law: Ideology and Law in American Popular Culture,” Columbia Journal of Law and the Arts 28 (2004), 91Google Scholar
Sherwin, Richard K., When Law Goes Pop: The Vanishing Line between Law and Popular Culture (Chicago: University of Chicago Press 2002)
Farber, Daniel A., Eskridge, William N., Jr., and Frickey, Philip F., eds., Cases and Materials on Constitutional Law: Themes for the Constitution’s Third Century, (4th ed.) (New York: Foundation Press 2009)
West, Robin L., “Introduction to Rights, Entry,” Encyclopedia of International Legal Theory (Aldershot, UK: Ashgate Press 2003)
Tushnet, Mark, “An Essay on Rights,” Texas Law Review 62 (1984)Google Scholar
Horwitz, Morton J., “Rights,” Harvard Civil Rights–Civil Liberties Law Review 23 (1988)Google Scholar
Bandes, Susan, “The Negative Constitution: A Critique,” Michigan Law Review 88 (1989), 2271Google Scholar
Tussman, Joseph and tenBroek, Jacobus, “The Equal Protection of the Laws,” California Law Review 37 (1948), 341Google Scholar
Liu, Goodwin, “‘History Will Be Heard’: An Appraisal of the Seattle/Louisville Decision,” Harvard Law and Policy Review 2 (2008), 53Google Scholar
Liu, Goodwin, “Education, Equality, and National Citizenship,” Yale Law Journal 116 (2006), 330Google Scholar
Liu, Goodwin, “Affirmative Action in Higher Education: The Diversity Rationale and the Compelling Interest Test,” Harvard Civil Rights–Civil Liberties Law Review 33 (1998), 381Google Scholar
Cohen, Julius, “Toward Realism Legisprudence,” Yale Law Journal 59 (1949)Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×