Reading: Lens, The Judiciary and Social Policy Cohen, Supreme Inequality: "Turning Against the Poor" Lens identifies several important areas where law and policy overlap. She looks at three specific issues: how and when courts make laws where none exist interpreting laws, and interpreting the constitution. And she concludes: "Advocates for judicial intervention contend that the judiciary advances, rather than impedes, the democratic ideal because it protects the rights and interests of minorities. Whereas one needs power and connections for access to legislators, access to the court is guaranteed to all. Thus, rather than disenfranchising citizens, courts enfranchise them, especially those citizens who lack a voice in the legislative process Most courts are also less susceptible to outside pressure, which allows them to do what is right rather than what is popular." (301-2) Cohen's conclusion is exactly the opposite of Lens': "The Court's past five decades of rulings on the rights of the poor have been more than debates over legal doctrine: they have had a significant financial impact on Americans who live, as President Johnson said in his 1964 State of the Union address, 'on the outskirts of hope.' The Court wrestled, often at high levels of abstraction, with questions like whether the poor should be a suspect class and how to interpret the AFDC statute. On a practical level, its decisions in many cases determined whether poor families had enough money to pay the rent or buy food." (86) We will continue this analysis in our discussion groups this week, but in this response think about what each of these authors uses as evidence for their arguments and conclusions. Decide which one seems to you the most appropriate argument for this decade. Indicate your choice and, from the chapter chosen, give three examples of evidence that supports your choice.