Constrained vs. Dynamic Court Debate

The dynamic court and the constrained court are two alternative constructions of the role of U.S. courts in producing significant social reform (Rosenberg, 1991). In essence, two opposing views of the role that should be undertaken by the courts have emerged over time. The idea of a ôconstrainedö court is based on an ideology dating back to the Founding Fathers. This approach suggests that the conditions required for the courts to produce significant social reform seldom exists. The constrained court operates from a strict construction of the U.S. Constitution, limits judicial independence, and tends to emphasize a lack of tools available to the courts to develop appropriate policies and implement decisions that order significant social reform (Rosenberg, 1991).

The ôdynamicö court view asserts that the constrained court view misses key advantages of courts. As Rosenberg (1991) notes, crucial to the dynamic court view is the belief that courts are free from electoral constraints and institutional arrangements that inhibit change. This view proposes that courts are able to act in the face of public opposition because they are insulated from political pressures and because they are in the strongest position to insist that unconstitutional conditions be remedied even at a significant financial cost. As Rosenberg (1991) maintains, those who call for a dynamic court system believe that courts are in an ideal

. . .
together a profitable dotcom industry player and the long-established RIAA. Fitzpatrick (2000) reported that the RIAA has successfully represented members of the recording industry in suits against other organizations such as My.MP3.com. Like Napster, the RIAA sued My.MP3.com for copyright infringement and was successful in gaining an injunction against the firm which was found by a U.S. District Court to have violated copyright law (Fitzpatrick, 2000). Both the initial and subsequent rulings on behalf of the RIAA support the notion that the Court was acting within a set of narrowly confined constraints based on legal precedent and federal statute. Legal Claims and Resolution In December 1999, multiple record labels filed a lawsuit against Napster, accusing the company of encouraging the illegal copying and distribution of copyright music on a massive scale (Technology timeline, 2002). Some of the most powerful recording companies joined in this lawsuit, including Universal Music, BMG, Sony Music, and Warner Music Group. On July 26, 2000, U.S. Judge Marilyn Patel issued an injunction against Napster and ordered the company to prohibit copyrighted songs from appearing on its online file-sharing service. The move would es
. . .

Some common words found in the essay are:
Morris Mapes, Founding Fathers, Marilyn Patel, RIAA July, Copyright Act, Judge Patel, Court Appeals, Circuit Court, Slinger Hillman, Supreme Court, mapes 2001, morris mapes 2001, constrained court, morris mapes, rosenberg 1991, technology timeline, timeline 2002, copyrighted materials, technology timeline 2002, copyright infringement, court view, record labels, circuit court appeals, slinger hillman 2002, significant social reform,
Approximate Word count = 2175
Approximate Pages = 9 (250 words per page)