U.S. Supreme Court in the civil rights era: Deliberative Democracy and its educative institutional role, 1950s–1970s

• Authors: Carlos Figueroa
• Languages of publication: EN

Abstracts

EN

This 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.

Keywords

EN

educative court; deliberative democracy; judicial review; U.S. Supreme Court; ethical responsibility

• Publisher: Uniwersytet Łódzki. Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego
• Journal: Annales. Etyka w Życiu Gospodarczym
• Year: 2018
• Volume: 21
• Issue: 4
• Pages: 59-88

Dates

published

2019-03-19

Contributors

author

Carlos Figueroa

• Ithaca College, Politics Department, School of Humanities and Sciences

References

• Abraham, H. J. (1994). The judiciary: The Supreme Court in the governmental process (9th Ed.). Madison, WI: Brown & Benchmark Publishers.
• Abraham, 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.
• Ackerman, B. (1991). We the People foundations. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Araiza, W., Haddon, P. A., & Roberts, D. E. (2006). Constitutional law: Cases, history, and dialogues. LexisNexis.
• Besson, S., & Marti, J. L. (Eds.) (2006). Deliberative democracy and its discontents. Aldershot, Burlington: Ashgate.
• Bickel, A. (1968). The least dangerous branch: The Supreme Court at the bar of politics (2nd Ed.). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
• Brennan, 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.
• Brinkley, A. (1993). The affluent society, the unfinished nation: A concise history of the American people. New York, NY: Alfred A. Knopf.
• Brown v. Board of Education. (1954). 347 U.S. 483.
• Dahl, R. (1957). Decision-Making in a democracy: The Supreme Court as a national policy-maker. Journal of Public Law, 6(1957), 279–295.
• Davis, A. L., & Graham, B. L. (1995). The Supreme Court, race, and civil rights: From Marshall to Rehnquist. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
• Eisgruber, C. (1962). Is the Supreme Court an educative institution? New York University Law Review, 961(1962).
• Ely, J. H. (1980). Democracy and distrust: A theory of judicial review. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Epstein, L., Knight, J., & Martin, A. (2001). The Supreme Court as a strategic national policymaker. Emory Law Journal, 50, 583–611.
• Figueroa, C. (2014). Book Foreword (Politics). In T. Broadwick, You’re not listening and other plays (pp. ix-xi). Southlake, TX: Fountainhead Press.
• Fisher, L. (1999). American constitutional law (3rd Ed.). Durham, N.C.: Caroline Academic Press.
• Friedman, 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.
• Frisch, 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.
• Funston, R. (1978). A vital national seminar: The Supreme Court in American political life. Palo Alto, California: Mayfield Publishing Company.
• Gambitta, 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.
• Gammon, T. E. (1977). Equal protection of the law and San Antonio Independent School District V. Rodriguez. Valparaiso University Law Review, 11(3), 435–472.
• Goldstein, L. F. (1987). Judicial review and democratic theory: Guardian Democracy vs. Representative Democracy. Western Political Quarterly, 40(3), September, 391–412.
• Guitton, 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.
• Hollinger, 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.
• Hugh, W. (2002). Five types of legal arguments. Durham, NC.
• Keynes, E. (1991). Democracy, judicial review, and the war powers. Undeclared war: Twilight zone of constitutional power. University Park, PA: Penn State Press.
• Kunsch, K. (1994). Standard of review (state and federal): A primer. Seattle University Law Review, 18(11), 11–49.
• Landynski, 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.
• Landynski, J. W., & Padover, S. K. (1983). The living U.S. constitution (2nd Ed.). New York, NY: New American Library.
• Levinson, S. (2000). Preface to Third Edition. In R. G. McCloskey (Ed.). The American Supreme Court (pp. ix–xi). University of Chicago Press.
• Marsh, 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.
• Marti, J. L. (2017). Pluralism and consensus in deliberative democracy. Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy, 20(5), 556–579.
• McCloskey, R. (2000). American Supreme Court. University of Chicago Press.
• Mouffe, C. (1999). Deliberative democracy or agonistic pluralism? Social Research, 66(3), 745–758.
• Mouffe, C. (2005). The return of the political. London and New York: Verso Books.
• O’Brien, D. (2003). Constitutional Law and politics: Civil rights and liberties, (vol. 2, 5th Ed.). New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Company.
• Perreti, T. J. (1999). Whither the court and constitution? In Defense of a Political Court (pp. 229–230). Princeton University Press.
• Powell, H. J. (1985). The original understanding of original intent. Harvard Law Review, 98(5), 885–948.
• Rakove, J. N. (1996). Original meanings: Politics and Ideas in the making of the constitution. New York, NY: Alfred A. Knopf.
• Rakove, J. N. (Eds.). (1990). Interpreting the constitution: The debate over original intent. Boston, MA: Northeastern University Press.
• Reed, Jr., A. (2004). Beyond Black, White and Brown: A Forum. The Nation April 15.
• Report of the Study Group on the Caseload of the Supreme Court, 57 F.R.D. (1972), p. 573.
• Rosenberg, G. N. (1993). The hollow hope: Can courts bring about social change. University of Chicago Press.
• Rostow, E. V. (1952). The democratic character of judicial review. Harvard Law Review, 66, 193–224.
• San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez. (1973). 411 U.S. 1.
• Schmitter, 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.
• Smith, R. M. (1997). Civic ideals: Conflicting visions of citizenship in U.S. history. Yale University Press.
• Sunstein, C. (1993). The partial constitution. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Thayer, J. B. (1893). The origin and scope of the American doctrine of constitutional law. Harvard Law Review, 7(3), October 25, 130–156.
• The Philadelphia Inquirer. (1968, October 4).
• The Supreme Court of the United States, October 1971 Term, No. 71-1332, Red Books.
• Thompson, D. F. (2008). Deliberative democratic theory and empirical political science. Annual Review of Political Science, 11, 497–520.
• Tushnet, M. (1999). Taking the constitution away from the courts. Princeton University Press.
• United States v. Carolene Products Co. (1939). 304 U.S. 144.
• Voeten, E. (2014, September 12). Judges as principled politicians. The Washington Post.
• Whittington, K. E. (2009). Political foundations of judicial supremacy: The presidency, the Supreme Court, and constitutional leadership in U.S. History. Princeton University Press.
• Zinn, H. (1995). A people’s history of the United States. New York: HarperCollins.

Identifiers

DOI

10.18778/1899-2226.21.4.06