Critical Assessment of Gerald Rosenberg (2004)’s Views

 1
Your topic: Ability to reflect and critically think through the course material of the first term.
Your topic's description: Gerald Rosenberg (2004)’s Views
Your desired style of citation: APA
Your educational level: Standard
Number of page: 11
2750 words
2
Running Head: ESSAY/SHORT ANSWERS
Essay/Short Answers
[Student’s Name]
[Name of Institution]
[Date]
3
Essay/Short Answers
1. Critical Assessment of Gerald Rosenberg (2004)’s Views
Introduction
To understand comprehensively the role of the judiciary in a democratic context, not enough to
study the immediate effects of judgments. That's the first step. More complicated phase but also
the most rewarding, is to analyze so empirically what are the medium and long-term decisions
taking the courts and tribunals. This includes determining if a decision is limited to the case that
motivated, or if you have a greater impact on society. Only then one can know with certainty if
the courts of a country function as an engine of change, as a major player in the process of
expanding rights. Gerald Rosenberg (2004) argues that contrary to popular perception, the U.S.
Supreme Court’s decision in Brown did not influence congressional and presidential action in the
area of civil rights. This essay has critically assessed and explained Rosenberg (2004)’s central
argument, particularly clarifying how he measures ‘influence.
Rosenberg (2004)’s Central Arguments
Gerald Rosenberg (2004), has conducted a study of this kind in The Hollow Hope: Can Courts
Bring about Social Change? The Rosenberg (2004) aims to investigate what extent and under
what conditions the judiciary; particularly the U.S. Supreme Court can cause some social group
start enjoying a right that was denied them before. Their cases studies are some of the most
important judicial decisions in the United States during the twentieth century. These decisions
are usually considered a watershed in such topics as racial integration, rights reproductive rights
of women and political representation (Hull, 2013).
Rosenberg (2004)’s findings are conclusive; Supreme Court has very unlikely to bring about
social change by itself. According to Rosenberg (2004), trust the courts to act effectively when 
4
the executive and the legislature fail, is to have a hope hollow. The author argues that if there
were changes in the subjects studied, produced by other factors and not by the intervention of the
Court. The first part of the study analyzes the impact of the Brown case v Board of Education
(1954), in which the Court determined that establishing separate schools for blacks and whites
was unconstitutional. Usually, organizations that promote civil rights cite the case Brown as one
of the most important moments in the struggle for racial integration. They argue that the schools
were segregating students as a direct result of the ruling. However, the author shows that this
argument is false.
Although, Brown Case leaves no doubts about the constitutionality segregation in the southern
states of the United States did not happen virtually nothing. A 10 -year- Brown schools remained
equally segregated than before sentencing. Only until Congress passed the Civil Rights Act in
1964, all states began to integrate blacks and whites in the same schools. Therefore, the Judiciary
failed to achieve social change; it was only possible to speaking the legislature (Hull, 2013).
According to Rosenberg (2004) the second issue is the legalization of abortion, which he gave
thanks to Roe v case Wade (1973). He explains that the promoters legalization have used similar
tools to organizations advocating racial integration. Instead of promoting changes through
legislation, sought the judiciary will act in favor of reproductive rights of women. Their efforts,
at least in the court level, were successful: the Court stated in Roe laws which forbade abortion
were unconstitutional because abortion was a decision protected by the right to privacy.
It is necessary to study the social consequences of the decision. If the strategy of the promoters
of the legalization of abortion was correct, then after Roe the number of legal abortions should
have increased considerably. Evidence shows that it was not. Although more abortions were 
5
performed in 1973 the increase was part of a trend that began 1970. In fact, the largest increase
occurred between 1970 and 1971, three years before Roe.
Rosenberg (2004) explains that the reason that abortions did not increase has to do with the
restrictions under which the judiciary operates. the judgment decriminalized abortion , but most
U.S. hospitals lacked trained personnel to perform this practice surgical , so abortion rights are
denied to many women. The Supreme Court not only did not anticipate this setback, but had no
tools to correct it.
Measurement of Influence
A final issue worth noting is the influence of the Court in political representation. In