Posts
In one of my previous entries I said that I thought maybe the court should have taken more steps to ensure that the law was properly carried out as they intended, however in reading the opening to this article it immediately struck me that this is simply not the intended nature of the courts. The introduction summarizes several cases that occurred following Brown v. Board, and I noticed that these all come several years after the initial decision, but they pertain to the exact same issues, which means that the law is still not being followed as intended.
I guess reading this me realize that the problem is not so much their failures, but the inherently reactive nature of the system. Rather than ever acting in a preventative manned the courts are forced to act in a way that only allows them to interact with an incident after it has already happened. Legislature is supposed to be able to deal with anticipating the problems and creating law to deal with them, but even today, perhaps more than ever, it takes absurd amounts of time for decisions to come down about issues that have been issues for extended periods of time. I guess these readings did manage to make me pretty pessimistic as I have no ideas for how to actually make things better, only observations about how they are wrong.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I wanted to read The Hollow Hope, but I was nervous that it would make me an even more negative person. Although pessmistic, it sounds like good points are made here. Media comes into play. It takes so long to make a decision that you generally hear about a trial that concerns an important issue at its beginning and its end...sometimes with months, even years, between. The media should do a better job of fully covering the issue, even with the trial going on, and should cover MORE supreme court decisions, not just the ones that involve celebrities.
ReplyDelete