Reference no: EM133328661
Case: Dworkin, in Law's Empire, says "The United States is a more just society than it would have been had its constitutional rights been left to the conscience of majoritarian institutions." On the other hand, Dahl says, "it is doubtful that the fundamental conditions of liberty in this country have been altered more than a hair's breadth as a result of [its pro-fundamental liberties] decisions. ... [In the remaining cases] the Court used the protections of the Fifth, Thirteenth, Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to preserve the rights and liberties of a relatively privileged group at the expense of the rights and liberties of a submerged group."
Neither offers real proof of the cumulative effect of the Supreme Court's intervention in our politics. Based on our discussions and all the readings we have done since the midterm, including Breyer, Scalia and Dworkin (you can include earlier ones, if you wish), who do you think is more likely to be right, and why?
Points go not for getting the answer "right," or for the use of extensive examples from the (real) US Supreme Court's history, but for the appropriate and creative use of the theories we have discussed in class, and for references to our class discussions and lectures. If you wish, you may use examples from the class Supreme Court and its treatment of the cases to support your argument.