The Hollow Hope : Can Courts Bring About Social Change?

On June 26, 2015, the US Supreme Court ruled that the US Constitution guarantees the right for same-sex couples to marry. Many conservative groups do NOT agree with this decision. The gay marriage debate has been simmering for as long as I can remember. The four articles I have selected give information from four different perspectives including that of liberals, conservatives, homosexuals, and orthodox Jews. With so many differing opinions, one can understand why it's been so hard for the nation to come to agree on this issue.

In his book The Hollow Hope, Gerald Rosenberg’s thesis concerning law and social change is that the courts are ineffective in creating significant social reforms. His main claim is that the courts are too weak to overcome their lack of constitutional rights, their apprehension to make unpopular rulings, and their lack of judicial enforcement powers (Rosenberg). In his view, Rosenberg assesses that under the right legal and social conditions these constraints can be overcome, but ultimately he concludes that the courts can only bring about the illusion of change, stating that, “U.S. courts can almost never be effective producers of significant social reform. At best, they can second the social reform acts of the other branches of government” (Rosenberg 422). Regarding same sex marriage, Rosenberg’s assessment is that while proponents of same sex marriage had the necessary elements to produce social reform, they turned to the courts too early and as a result, the litigation campaign resulted in “one step forward, two steps back” (Rosenberg 368).

In the early days of the American government, there was a long struggle between the federalist, and the anti-federalist about the ratification of a constitution for a young nation. During that time, slavery was a source of labor, and commerce for our thirteen states, but this didn’t sit well with these human properties, because they wanted their grievances to be answered. Once it was clear that African-Americans were people who deserve the same rights as others too, it sparked the voices from women who were properties of their spouses. In continuation of all these dilemmas, there was a hidden developing conflict for homosexual rights. The rights that Americans think they are entitled too, must be answered,

In the historic ruling of Obergefell v. Hodges declaring same-sex marriage legal in all 50 states, four justices voted against the majority, each giving his or her own reason for dissenting. This momentous decision arose many controversial questions, many believing our justice system was faulty in the decision making process for an issue of such gravity and lasting implications.

The first part of this essay will provide a brief insight into the history of the Supreme Court, the original intentions of the founding fathers and a discussion on how they idealized the relationship between politics and the law. The second section will explore how the contemporary process to which judges are appointed has become significantly influenced by politics. The third section will discuss how the Supreme Court overstepped its boundaries on constitutional interpretation in the Roe v. Wade case. The final section will unpack the importance of partisanship and ideological politics and discuss how it impacts the function of the Justices in their

Multiple groups of same sex couples sued their state agencies in four different states Ohio, Tennessee, Michigan, and Kentucky to challenge the constitutionality of those four states ‘ban on same sex marriage. The plaintiffs of each case argued that the states’ statues violated the Equal Protection Clause and their Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. One plaintiff group also brought up claims under the Civil Rights Act. The Trial court found in favor to all of the plaintiffs cases. The U.S. Court of Appeals reversed and held that the states’ ban on same sex marriage and refusal

On June 4, 2008, the plaintiffs in this case include fifteen same-sex couples who wish to marry in California and support groups for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered Californians. They were denied many times; however, now before the California Supreme Court, they argue that “California has long led the nation in recognizing that constitutional provisions guaranteeing equal protection, privacy, due process and freedom of association and expression require that lesbian and gay people, like all people, be treated fairly under the law.” Nonetheless these protections, California has denied same-sex couples the right to marry. That denial, they argue, violates the California Constitution.

The judicial branch, in its conception as outlined in Article III of the constitution was designated the “power to interpret the law, determine the constitutionality of the law, and apply it to individual cases (The White House)”. However, since the ratification of the constitution, much like the other two branches of government, the judicial branch has also experienced an expanded delegation of authority and power. This notion is evidenced in the 1803 decision on the case of Marbury v. Madison where the Supreme Court asserted its power of judicial review by ”blocking last-minute appointments by outgoing President John Adams (Chegg)” by declaring that these actions should not be permitted because the supreme court, under chief justice john Marshall declared them unconstitutional(Cornell). This set forth a very powerful precedent for judicial review, one that continues to play a critical role in political discourse today. Although the evolution of the judiciary commenced following the fallout of the 1803 decision, the courts have delegated to themselves a controversial role as policy-makers in response to societal demands and stresses placed upon the political system specifically during and after the civil rights movement that occurred in the United States during the 20th century. This expanded role into the realm of actual policy making is derived from the belief that the constitution is indeed a living and flexible document that must retain the capability for change. As the

A major victory was won by the LGBT community when the Supreme Court ruled that same-sex marriage was legal on June 26th of 2015 across all of the United States. This ruling effectively states that any state-law restricting marriage to male-female is unconstitutional. This had been a fight since the 1970s when the issues of same-sex marriage first began to gain steam. Over the years, various states have legalised same-sex marriage to certain degrees, however it wasn’t until after 3 decades that the issue was finally acknowledged on a national level. This change furthers the ideology of freedom and equality of the american constitution and will invoke the betterment of

Our government's job is to provide safety, equality, and to preserve our freedoms as human beings. Laws are put in place in order to assure that these elements are enforced. However, as seen several times throughout history, the government often fails to do so. Whether the country’s idea of moral standard changes or a new people group infiltrates in, laws are often alternated in an attempt to better the satisfaction of the people. Yet in the past, these laws have failed to acknowledge the natural rights given to each human. For example, fugitive slave laws; and later, segregation laws. People who recognized the immorality within these laws would disregard these in order to bring the depravity of these laws to light, following their moral obligations. If these people had not spoken out against these laws, they would still exist today. Segregation laws degraded people’s humanity, so it was assertively immoral to follow them. Many

Since the beginning of time, the question of whether most of the power should go to the state or federal government has led to a considerable amount of disagreements between political parties, groups, and individuals. Thought, the one that holds most power is not guaranteed to prevent any further debates relating to who is more qualified to guarantee the rights of individuals. For instance, while one individual believes that granting people the right to same-sex marriage advocates victory, others might believe that same-sex marriage is a violation of their own civil rights.

Change happens all around us, every minute of every day. There is some change that transpires in an instant, like changing your mind to buy a chicken sandwich instead of a hamburger at McDonald’s. Then there is other change that happens over time. Subsequently, social change has never materialized instantly. This kind of change takes time, unrelenting perseverance, and strong leadership to guide it along its long journey. For instance, in 1865 the 13th amendment abolished slavery, however, many African Americans were still denied rights for more than one hundred years, and even still today we deal with civil right issues. Furthermore, another social change that has taken more than fifty years is the gay rights movement. Homosexuality was first decriminalized in 1962; however, it wasn’t until 2011 that “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” was repealed. With each

Family and marriage has been a hot topic in government recently. With the Supreme Court ruling that gay marriage is legal the value of God is dimensioning even more with the government and society. As time has progressed the government’s view on family and marriage has changed from a commitment before God to merely a legal contract. Legalizing gay marriage and removing God from the union of marriage and family shows how relativism has impacted decisions in the government.

Every now and then, an event occurs that drastically shifts the dynamic of history in a brief period of time. An action, commonly a perceived denial of rights, plants a seed that is destined to grown into severe liberation. In America specifically, this judgement is ultimately determined by the Supreme Court. Whether or not these decisions were righteous and sensible is still up for debate; however, one can celebrate the decisions, embrace them, accept them, get over it, or whatever he feels the need to do, but there is no denying them; the resolutions are the official law of the land.

Professor Johnson’s lecture sparked conversation about whether or not the Supreme Court ruling accomplished enough for the LGBT community. At the time, I was unaware of how the ruling could be something that wasn’t an all-around win for the community, but after being introduced to queer politics