4 ms·

Judicial opinion often follows public opinion more closely than you might think. The constitution did not apply to non-whites until it did. Women did not have e

Judicial opinion often follows public opinion more closely than you might think. The constitution did not apply to non-whites until it did. Women did not have equal rights to men, and then they did. It was not the constitution changing but rather the legal interpretation of it. Edited to add: the court cases do not occur until a significant portion of the population believes in an issue enough to be willing to fight for it. Even then, the courts may take a significant amount if time adjusting their legal interpretation.

lkbm 12y ago
You need someone to bring a case to court, yes, but do you need a court case and widespread popular support? Interracial marriage hit 50% approval in the US in the mid-nineties.[0] It was made legal (nationally) in the 1960s. [0] http://www.gallup.com/poll/28417/most-americans-approve-interracial-marriages.aspx http://www.gallup.com/poll/28417/most-americans-approve-inte...
- goodcanadian 12y ago
  You seem to have focused on my secondary comment rather than my main point. My point was that judges are a product of society as much as anyone. They may make rulings that are unpopular, but they will rarely make rulings that are unthinkable within our society. As for your example of interracial marriage, there is a stark difference between disapproving of something and thinking it should be a crime.
  - lkbm 12y ago
    Yes, it has to be thinkable, but I don't know whether or not judicial decisions closely follow public opinion. With interracial marriage, it doesn't _seem_ to have. (I'll agree there is a difference between disapproval and favoring criminalization, I've seen no data on percentage thinking it should be decriminalized, so I use the data I do have, with a grain of salt.) My issue is I don't have any data to say whether the judiciary follows closely public opinion, or comes from something else--luck of the draw in who happens to be sitting on the court, for example. (e.g., the change that switched national minimum wage from unconstitutional to A-OK seemed to primarily involved FDR putting friendlier judges on the bench, not an outcry from the public.)

lkbm 12y ago

You need someone to bring a case to court, yes, but do you need a court case and widespread popular support? Interracial marriage hit 50% approval in the US in the mid-nineties.[0] It was made legal (nationally) in the 1960s. [0] http://www.gallup.com/poll/28417/most-americans-approve-interracial-marriages.aspx http://www.gallup.com/poll/28417/most-americans-approve-inte...

goodcanadian 12y ago
You seem to have focused on my secondary comment rather than my main point. My point was that judges are a product of society as much as anyone. They may make rulings that are unpopular, but they will rarely make rulings that are unthinkable within our society. As for your example of interracial marriage, there is a stark difference between disapproving of something and thinking it should be a crime.
- lkbm 12y ago
  Yes, it has to be thinkable, but I don't know whether or not judicial decisions closely follow public opinion. With interracial marriage, it doesn't _seem_ to have. (I'll agree there is a difference between disapproval and favoring criminalization, I've seen no data on percentage thinking it should be decriminalized, so I use the data I do have, with a grain of salt.) My issue is I don't have any data to say whether the judiciary follows closely public opinion, or comes from something else--luck of the draw in who happens to be sitting on the court, for example. (e.g., the change that switched national minimum wage from unconstitutional to A-OK seemed to primarily involved FDR putting friendlier judges on the bench, not an outcry from the public.)