The philosophical idea of judicial activism over judicial restraint has been criticized by legal scholars who say it’s legislating from the bench. However, the differing legal philosophies are debatable to times end and are left to the interpretations of each judge and justice. 2 The Supreme Court included no guidance in its first ruling on Brown v. Board of Education on how to actually implement desegregation. Instead, it called for further court discussion, after which it issued a second unanimous ruling in May 1955.
Known as Brown II, this decision tasked local federal judges with making sure that schools were integrated. Although this case was a first of its kind, the lengthy court discussion, the second oral argument, and the court’s decision o issue a second opinion have come under fire. The plan to integrate should have been left that to the executive branch for carrying out of the rule of law. President Dwight D. Eisenhower ultimately did this through Executive Order, federating the Arkansas National Guard to break up the mass riots and oversee the desegregation.
The Legal Defense Fund, a branch of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) under the direction of Thorough Marshall, led the charge for Oliver L. Brown, the plaintiff in the case. Marshall along with a team of attorneys developed the strategy to attack the “equal” part f the Jim Crow Laws and established that the amenities provided for the black students were not equal under the 14th amendment’s equal protection clause. The Court in its unanimous decision agreed with the petitioner, overturned Please v. Ferguson, and ruled segregation unconstitutional once and for all.
The Supreme Court made many strides in coming to its opinion, the justices used the philosophy of statutory construction in interpreting the 14th amendment, viewed the constitution as a living document with the original values that do in fact change as society changes. This type of philosophy can be seen with the rout’s decision to overturn precedent that was interpreted in a time where segregation was socially acceptable. Therefore, Brown v. Board of Education will always be known as the case that changed American history for decades to come. Special Interest in American Politics An interest group is an organization whose members share common concerns, and try to influence government policies that impact those concerns trough the philosophy of Pluralism. Elected officials frequently complain about the influence of “special interests” on American politics. Year after year, election cycle after election cycle, politicians on both sides of the isle, republican and democrat, continue to accept campaign contribution from special interest groups. One of the most important groups that I support is the Human Rights Campaign.
The HRS as it’s known for short, is a special interest group combined of more than 1. 5 million members that support equality in the Lesbian, Gay, Bi-sexual, and Transgender (LEGIT) communities. The efforts of the HRS are combined with many partners in assisting with legal cases nationwide challenging states discriminatory laws. The Human Rights Campaign also hosts and supports allies nationwide for equality for LEGIT people and most importantly HRS offers education to the public on those issues. The Human Rights Campaign supports many elected officials that agree with the mission of the HRS.
Mostly democratic candidates are recipients of Harm’s campaign contributions and right-wing republicans are the least favored. The HRS has lobbied congressional politicians on both the state and national levels to support legislation that is important to its mission. The Human Rights Campaign has also supported and hosted protests against laws that currently exist and those progressing in congress on both levels of government. The HRS influences the determination of same-sex couples who wish to marry and are denied, to then take their case to a court of law.
The fight for civil rights, equality and the progressive movement to advance justice for the discriminated are reason that will always support the HRS and its efforts. 4 Out of the many special interest groups in American politics today, the one that I most disagree with on every aspect of its existence is the America Family Association. The FAA which was founded in 1977 holds its mission to be that of family values and happily displays its ideology as Anti-LEGIT. The main agenda of the FAA is to promote traditional moral values and “combating the homosexual agenda” as it states it.
The most recent activity of the FAA was in 2013 to defeat the litigation of the HRS partnered with the American Civil Liberties Union (UCLA) in overturning Californians Proposition 8 and the Defense of Marriage Act (DOOM), which they ultimately failed in. The American Family Association through its Political Action Committee (PACE) supports every republican candidate in the US Congress that disagrees with same-sex marriage and publicly criticizes the liberal democrats that do not. The FAA has lobbied congress just as any other special interest group in politics.
It also owns several radio stations to convey its rightsizing views about homosexuality, abortion, and Christianity. I dislike the American Family Association for their continued discrimination of LEGIT people, its opposition to equality for same-sex couples, and for their conservative values which I do not support. However, I do respect the FAA in its right to hold the values that it does. I would like to bring to light that the Human Rights Campaign has many corporate members including Bank of America, Apple, Cit Group and Microsoft o name a few contrary to Fast efforts against it.
