Money is property. "Money" talks is a theme the author reiterates--nonstop these days, with not enough trickling down to the people (given our present voodoo economics) who pay all of the taxes. Rich people talk and are listened to as they grease palms. Through this sort-of-syllogism we're right back into plutocracy, that monster humanity has objected to and attempted to battle when brave enough. Property is just the beginning.
"In essence, their [the Supreme Court's] First Amendment enshrines capitalism."
*****
Should I give you a hint about how the book ends? the author emailed to me on August 10. The butler does it!
*****
Of course, democratic political theory is another process in flux, rather than definitive, encompassing not just what American democracy has been; it is normative--how our evolving values and institutions should operate; it should be empirical, encompassing the findings of political science; and of course it involves jurisprudence in a transcendent mixture that the author is only beginning to explore and apply. This book is an introduction to a project to change thinking fundamentally, inevitably influencing laws and judicial decision making.
There is need for an update to embrace what democracy has become since pluralism emerged in the mid-twentieth century, so that the field of election law as well as a new definition of American democracy are in the works, a crucial point in thinking and practice. "Democracy and election law are poised for another great transformation."
*****
I have not scratched the surface of the insightfulness of this book and what it has taught me. This review is too long. An expert would have summed up the vitally important points in far fewer words. I could have underlined every word in the book and still not written the review this book deserves.
In a word, read this book. I cannot recommend it too highly and thank the author for the further insights he supplied as I wrote this review--this interview portion is set in italics.
*****
To conclude on another note, I also asked the author whether he approves of electing judges at every level of the judiciary in this country. He agreed with me that appointment of them is preferable--I had said that despite the very definition of our governing system as democratic, appointment would more closely approach the possibility of nonpartisan objectivity that should be a hallmark of the judiciary system but often isn't. Professor Schultz answered:
First, judicial selection makes a difference. Research suggests that elected judges are less likely to support individual rights than those appointed. While I think all selection systems are flawed, I personally think some type of appointed system is the best.
Next Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
