POLS 4050 – Week 10 The U.S
Professor Jordi Diez
March 16, 2017
Shapiro, M. 1994. “The Judicialization of Politics in the United States” International Political
Science Review 15(4): 101-12.
- I suppose the article does a fine job of discussing the Warren and Burger because Shapiro
mentions a source to consult to understand the differences, but I had to look these up
previously. I don’t think the average person understands the difference. I think this article does
a good job explaining and justifying how unique the U.s is. However, I think the conclusion pages
bring up points she swept over throughout the article. As in, I understand the effect
gerrymandering has had on U.S elections but Shapiro doesn’t go into depth about things, not
that she doesn’t define them but she should state the significance.
- Upon reading this article again, I don’t know if I agree that the American legal system is as
transparent as the author claims it is. I think Shapiro can justify changes over the 70’s – 90’s lead
to everyone being able to have their voices represented in court, but I don’t think
representativeness and transparency are the same thing. Also, how can you really claim that
everyone is involved in the process of change and everyone’s voices were represented. For
example, Butler? - Said differences in gender were social conventions, made all the work of gay
men and lesbians who conformed to heteronormative couple/family norms counterproductive,
but this in itself, courts can be receptive to public participation but this doesn’t mean that what
becomes legislation is the true voice of groups voicing their opinion.
Kagan, R. A. (