ACS Releases Video of Convention panel on "Examining 'Backlash' and Attacks on Landmark Decisions"
Last weekend, the Fifth Annual ACS National Convention included a breakout session on "Examining 'Backlash' and Attacks on Landmark Decisions from Brown to Roe to Goodridge." Streaming video
of the discussion is now available in the ACS Multimedia Library.
This session -- which was taped and re-broadcast by C-SPAN and hosted by ACS's Issue Groups on Equality & Liberty and Constitutional Interpretation & Change -- explored the argument, heard lately with increasing frequency, that over-reliance on the courts has undermined progressive goals.
Some have asserted that Roe v. Wade, the Massachusetts Goodridge v. Department of Health decision mandating marriage equality, and even Brown v. Board of Education, were counter-productive because they short-circuited the political process, polarized debate, and fueled conservative activism. Are the factual premises of this "backlash thesis" correct? Are progressive setbacks attributable to excessive reliance on the courts? Where would we be without the landmark rights-based decisions of the last several decades? Should progressives approach the courts differently at this time in history?
Panelists included:
of the discussion is now available in the ACS Multimedia Library.
This session -- which was taped and re-broadcast by C-SPAN and hosted by ACS's Issue Groups on Equality & Liberty and Constitutional Interpretation & Change -- explored the argument, heard lately with increasing frequency, that over-reliance on the courts has undermined progressive goals.
Some have asserted that Roe v. Wade, the Massachusetts Goodridge v. Department of Health decision mandating marriage equality, and even Brown v. Board of Education, were counter-productive because they short-circuited the political process, polarized debate, and fueled conservative activism. Are the factual premises of this "backlash thesis" correct? Are progressive setbacks attributable to excessive reliance on the courts? Where would we be without the landmark rights-based decisions of the last several decades? Should progressives approach the courts differently at this time in history?
Panelists included:
- Edward Lazarus, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP
- Scott Lemieux, Professor of Political Science, Hunter College
- Robert C. Post, Professor of Law, Yale Law School
- Jeffrey Rosen, Professor of Law, George Washington University Law School
- Reva Siegel, Professor of Law, Yale Law School
- Roger Wilkins, Professor of History and American Culture, George Mason University
Post A Comment / Question