U.S. Supreme Court in the civil rights era: Deliberative Democracy and its educative institutional role, 1950s–1970s
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.18778/1899-2226.21.4.06Keywords:
educative court, deliberative democracy, judicial review, U.S. Supreme Court, ethical responsibilityAbstract
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.
References
Abraham, H. J. (1994). The judiciary: The Supreme Court in the governmental process (9th Ed.). Madison, WI: Brown & Benchmark Publishers.
Google Scholar
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.
Google Scholar
Ackerman, B. (1991). We the People foundations. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Google Scholar
Araiza, W., Haddon, P. A., & Roberts, D. E. (2006). Constitutional law: Cases, history, and dialogues. LexisNexis.
Google Scholar
Besson, S., & Marti, J. L. (Eds.) (2006). Deliberative democracy and its discontents. Aldershot, Burlington: Ashgate.
Google Scholar
Bickel, A. (1968). The least dangerous branch: The Supreme Court at the bar of politics (2nd Ed.). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Google Scholar
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.
Google Scholar
Brinkley, A. (1993). The affluent society, the unfinished nation: A concise history of the American people. New York, NY: Alfred A. Knopf.
Google Scholar
Brown v. Board of Education. (1954). 347 U.S. 483.
Google Scholar
Dahl, R. (1957). Decision-Making in a democracy: The Supreme Court as a national policy-maker. Journal of Public Law, 6(1957), 279–295.
Google Scholar
Davis, A. L., & Graham, B. L. (1995). The Supreme Court, race, and civil rights: From Marshall to Rehnquist. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Google Scholar
Eisgruber, C. (1962). Is the Supreme Court an educative institution? New York University Law Review, 961(1962).
Google Scholar
Ely, J. H. (1980). Democracy and distrust: A theory of judicial review. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Google Scholar
Epstein, L., Knight, J., & Martin, A. (2001). The Supreme Court as a strategic national policymaker. Emory Law Journal, 50, 583–611.
Google Scholar
Figueroa, C. (2014). Book Foreword (Politics). In T. Broadwick, You’re not listening and other plays (pp. ix-xi). Southlake, TX: Fountainhead Press.
Google Scholar
Fisher, L. (1999). American constitutional law (3rd Ed.). Durham, N.C.: Caroline Academic Press.
Google Scholar
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.
Google Scholar
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.
Google Scholar
Funston, R. (1978). A vital national seminar: The Supreme Court in American political life. Palo Alto, California: Mayfield Publishing Company.
Google Scholar
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.
Google Scholar
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.
Google Scholar
Goldstein, L. F. (1987). Judicial review and democratic theory: Guardian Democracy vs. Representative Democracy. Western Political Quarterly, 40(3), September, 391–412.
Google Scholar
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.
Google Scholar
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.
Google Scholar
Hugh, W. (2002). Five types of legal arguments. Durham, NC.
Google Scholar
Keynes, E. (1991). Democracy, judicial review, and the war powers. Undeclared war: Twilight zone of constitutional power. University Park, PA: Penn State Press.
Google Scholar
Kunsch, K. (1994). Standard of review (state and federal): A primer. Seattle University Law Review, 18(11), 11–49.
Google Scholar
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.
Google Scholar
Landynski, J. W., & Padover, S. K. (1983). The living U.S. constitution (2nd Ed.). New York, NY: New American Library.
Google Scholar
Levinson, S. (2000). Preface to Third Edition. In R. G. McCloskey (Ed.). The American Supreme Court (pp. ix–xi). University of Chicago Press.
Google Scholar
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.
Google Scholar
Marti, J. L. (2017). Pluralism and consensus in deliberative democracy. Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy, 20(5), 556–579.
Google Scholar
McCloskey, R. (2000). American Supreme Court. University of Chicago Press.
Google Scholar
Mouffe, C. (1999). Deliberative democracy or agonistic pluralism? Social Research, 66(3), 745–758.
Google Scholar
Mouffe, C. (2005). The return of the political. London and New York: Verso Books.
Google Scholar
O’Brien, D. (2003). Constitutional Law and politics: Civil rights and liberties, (vol. 2, 5th Ed.). New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Company.
Google Scholar
Perreti, T. J. (1999). Whither the court and constitution? In Defense of a Political Court (pp. 229–230). Princeton University Press.
Google Scholar
Powell, H. J. (1985). The original understanding of original intent. Harvard Law Review, 98(5), 885–948.
Google Scholar
Rakove, J. N. (1996). Original meanings: Politics and Ideas in the making of the constitution. New York, NY: Alfred A. Knopf.
Google Scholar
Rakove, J. N. (Eds.). (1990). Interpreting the constitution: The debate over original intent. Boston, MA: Northeastern University Press.
Google Scholar
Reed, Jr., A. (2004). Beyond Black, White and Brown: A Forum. The Nation April 15.
Google Scholar
Report of the Study Group on the Caseload of the Supreme Court, 57 F.R.D. (1972), p. 573.
Google Scholar
Rosenberg, G. N. (1993). The hollow hope: Can courts bring about social change. University of Chicago Press.
Google Scholar
Rostow, E. V. (1952). The democratic character of judicial review. Harvard Law Review, 66, 193–224.
Google Scholar
San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez. (1973). 411 U.S. 1.
Google Scholar
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.
Google Scholar
Smith, R. M. (1997). Civic ideals: Conflicting visions of citizenship in U.S. history. Yale University Press.
Google Scholar
Sunstein, C. (1993). The partial constitution. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Google Scholar
Thayer, J. B. (1893). The origin and scope of the American doctrine of constitutional law. Harvard Law Review, 7(3), October 25, 130–156.
Google Scholar
The Philadelphia Inquirer. (1968, October 4).
Google Scholar
The Supreme Court of the United States, October 1971 Term, No. 71-1332, Red Books.
Google Scholar
Thompson, D. F. (2008). Deliberative democratic theory and empirical political science. Annual Review of Political Science, 11, 497–520.
Google Scholar
Tushnet, M. (1999). Taking the constitution away from the courts. Princeton University Press.
Google Scholar
United States v. Carolene Products Co. (1939). 304 U.S. 144.
Google Scholar
Voeten, E. (2014, September 12). Judges as principled politicians. The Washington Post.
Google Scholar
Whittington, K. E. (2009). Political foundations of judicial supremacy: The presidency, the Supreme Court, and constitutional leadership in U.S. History. Princeton University Press.
Google Scholar
Zinn, H. (1995). A people’s history of the United States. New York: HarperCollins.
Google Scholar
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2018 Annales. Etyka w Życiu Gospodarczym
![Creative Commons License](http://i.creativecommons.org/l/by-nc-nd/4.0/88x31.png)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.