Arizona Proposition 102 - Do Civil Rights Stem from the Courts?

The argument that the Supreme Court was the sole benefactor of the civil rights movement is false. The Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and 1968 made segregation illegal and invalidated JIm Crow laws (among other things). The acts were properly directed through our elected officials to legislate a change in the law.

The problem with relying on the courts to establish the laws in this country lies in the fact that the courts aren't comprised of elected officials, aren't part of the democratic process, and aren't held to the wishes of the people. If the court makes a decision you like, then great, not a problem. But what if the court makes a decision you don't like?

For example, liberals loved the courts with Roe v. Wade. But liberals hated the Rehnquist Court's decision to stop the Democrats from recounting ballots in Florida in 2000 or the current court's decision to overturn the gun ban law in Washington D.C.

Be careful what you wish for. Depending on the courts to establish the will of the people is a double edged sword. That is why I argue in favor of a constitutional amendment to a law that will, sooner or later, come under the attack of the minority opinion and get decided in the courts. If you really want things to change, get the legislature or federal Congress on your side. Don't let the state and the country be legislated by a very small minority of judges.