Talk:Regulation through litigation

This page is a POV caricature

The page correctly mentions separation of powers, but just about everything else is an incorrect straw-man description. It needs complete rewriting.

The phrase is also used by supporters, such as Robert Reich [1]; it's descriptive, not derisive.
Nothing about arguments against regulation through litigation suggests that courts shouldn't enforce the first amendment or seek to overturn unconstitutional laws. Indeed, many liberals complain that some conservatives would use the Privileges and Immunities Clause, Commerce Clause, or the Contracts Clause to undo popular legislation.
The Brookings Institution bookstore sells Regulation through Litigation; this isn't just strict constructionists.
There's no mention of the use of litigation to achieve results regulating industry that the democratic process has rejected, the main objection to the concept.
There's no acknowledgement of the tort reform movement or class actions. Someone reading this would think it's purely a debate of constitutional interpretation.
Some other sources, readily available through a google search: [2], [3], [4]
Brown v. Board doesn't belong in the article at all, but I'd note also that legal historians on all sides of the debate would strongly dispute the characterization of Brown v. Board as successful judicial activism. Cass Sunstein, no radical rightist, argues persuasively to the contrary in that right-wing rag, The New Yorker.[5] The schools weren't desegregated until Congress acted.

I've radically toned down the POV. It's probably easier to re-write/expand now.

I removed the tag. Article needs some expansion still, but there's balance now. -- FRCP11 20:56, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've made additional edits and expansions consistent with the discussion above. -- FRCP11 01:26, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]