What does the judicial system do for those of us who aren't immediate victims? Why do we as a society need the court system? Is it only for black and white justice, or have we placed more importance then that on the righteousness of the gavel? In the modern United States there is a belief that the courts not only judge guilt, but at the highest level, act as a national conscience and affecting society before society realizes it should be changing... But is this the case? Do the Supreme Court justices of this nation produce any supreme changes in this nation themselves. Gerald R. Rosenberg believes he has found the answer to be a resounding no. In his book "The Hollow Hope: can the courts bring about social change?" Rosenberg contends that it’s nearly impossible to generate significant reforms through litigation, except with a fairly specific set of conditions and constrains met. Gerald attempts to use evidence to prove the American supreme court is more ineffective …show more content…
Rosenberg puts forth two views of how the Supreme Court's achieves the effects it does: the "Dynamic Court" and the "Constrained Court". The Dynamic Court view maintains that the United States Supreme Court is indeed capable of effecting widespread change. The Constrained Court view holds that unless certain constraints and conditions imposed upon the Court by the Constitution, the Congress, the public, and other factors are overcome, the Court is unable to accomplish significant change. Rosenberg supports his claims by analyzing specific court decisions, namely Brown v. Board of Education (1954) and Roe v. Wade (1973). Rosenberg condenses three constraints he sees on judicial efficacy that are built into the American legal system: the limited nature of constitutional rights, the lack of judicial independence, and the judiciary’s limited enforcement powers (Rosenberg 2008, pg.