A Litigation Democracy

  • Patrick M. Garry

Abstract

As envisioned by the Constitutional framers, of the three branches of government—executive, legislative, and judicial—the first two were supposed to be the ones in which the public most actively participated. Indeed, throughout most of American history, the political branches have commanded more of the public’s attention and energies than has the judicial. But with the litigation explosion erupting in the late decades of the 20th century, the courts have increasingly drained public attention and involvement from the political process. In effect, the litigation process has subverted the political process. It is as though, through the litigation explosion, the courts have become the arena for the political involvement of society, with the act of suing superseding the act of legislating.

Keywords

Arena Defend Hate Mili Fargo 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. 1.
    Source: Committee for the Study of the American Electorate,Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    “Promises, Promises,” New York Times Magazine (January 29, 1995), p. 14.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Franklin Knoll, “Apathy on a Roll,” New York Times Magazine (October 16, 1994), p. 37.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Poll results were published in “Congress Fails the Grade,” New York Times (November 3, 1994), p. 10A.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Katharine Seelye, “Lawmakers Take Sour View as Session Totters to Close,” New York Times (October 1, 1994), p. 1A.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    From a Time/CNN poll taken from August 31 to September 1, 1994 by Yan-kelovich Partners, Inc., reported in Keven Phillips, “Fat City,” Time (September 26, 1994): 55.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    E. J, Dionne, Jr., Why Americans Hate Politics (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1991).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    “The October Massacre,” The New Republic (October 24, 1994), p. 7.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Adam Clymer, “Awash in Filibusters, Senate Limps toward Adjournment,” New York Times (October 5, 1994), p. 1A.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Adam Clymer, “Rancor Leaves Its Mark on 103rd Congress,” New York Tittles (October 9, 1994), p. 1A.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    David Rosenbaum, “A Likely Long-Term Effect of Census Ruling: More Litigation,” New York Times (August 10, 1994), p. 8A.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Rhonda Hillbery, “Warning: Signing That Petition Could Get You Sued,” Law and Politics (July 1995): 19–22.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Joseph Berger, “Cottage Industry Fights City Hall, and It’s Winning,” New York Times (December 24, 1994), p. 11A.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hiller Zobel, “In Love with Lawsuits,” American Heritage (November 1994): 66.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Milo Geyelin, “Trial Lawyers Reach out to GOP with Revised Image and Strategy,” Wall Street Journal (December 15, 1994), p. B7.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Tamar Lewin, “New Anti-Abortion Move: Malpractice Suits,” New York Times (April 9, 1995), p. 1A.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Richard Schmitt, “Consumer Groups Get Windfall,” Wall Street Journal (April 22, 1994), p. B4.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kevin Diaz, “Closed Doors Prompt Open Quarreling,” Star Tribune (Minneapolis) (September 21, 1994), p. A1.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • Patrick M. Garry

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations