Though there are drawbacks when relying on “norms” to make judicial decisions, the positives have appeared to outweigh the negatives. Delgado argues that the use of “norms” allows the morality of the times cloud what is supposed to be an impartial decision made by a judge. If in fact this argument holds water, many would be alienated by the decisions made by these judges who employ this way of thinking. It is my argument that these very “norms” aid in swaying the judges who employ them into making decisions that are beneficial to both society and the legal system.

The same idea can be applied to race theorists. While it is true that years ago those who were of any other race but white were discriminated against due to the “norms” of the dominant society, the justice system has come a long way in the attempt to change the way our society works. This could not have been accomplished had the black rights movement not made equality a household word thus making it a “norm”. By making equal rights for all races a “norm” a plethora of judicial decisions such a Brown v. Board of Education, that integrated schools, would have been swept under the rug. Segregation would still exist. Blacks would not have the right to vote, and we wouldn’t have policies such as affirmative action or equal opportunity employment. After the monumental decision of Brown v. Board of Education the judicial system has made great strides in providing African Americans with a more level playing field. The implementation of Affirmative Action has given those from other cultures a better chance at getting into good schools in order to receive a better education. This in turn trickles onto the job seekers that have gotten a better chance at finding a good job through equal opportunity employment. Without these shifting norms we would still have a 1960’s way of life filled with oppression and overt racism. One of the biggest problems we face today with the judicial system is jury nullification. Though it is believed that these jurors are making a mockery of the court system by not convicting those who are guilty, it is just another step in the direction of equality in the eyes of the law. This form of protestation will no doubt lead to yet another shift from the “norm” of courts being more willing to convict a black defendant to the “norm” of everyone being convicted equally. We still have a long way to go before our system is no longer racially biased, but as the “norms” change and the fight continues we still have that chance.

The school of thought called Law and Literature is heavily relied on in order to fully realize a “norm” shift. In many Supreme Court cases Amici Briefs are used to bring the justices closer to the case before them. A well - written account can bring a “norm” to life like no sterile argument can. Narratives make quite an impact before a case is even heard. In order for an idea to become prevalent it must be able to be heard by the masses. The more an idea is heard and agreed with the quicker it becomes a “norm”. This is when narrative and story – telling are at their best. There is no better way to get your idea across to others than mass distribution. When fighting for equality Malcolm X and Martin Luther King not only spoke to the masses, but they wrote and distributed their ideas and personal accounts to them as well. By doing so their words found their way to places both men could not go. This mass distribution of literature started a movement and field of thought by both black and some white communities to try and

Some topics in this essay:
Michel Foucault, Affirmative Action, Christine Littleton, Cultural Difference, Legal Realism, Race Theory, Luther King, Bradwell Illinois, Books Friedan’s, Planned Parenthood, legal system, “norms” society, judicial system, legal realism, change society, equal opportunity employment, bradwell illinois, feminist legal, legal theory, opportunity employment, theories movements, changing “norms” society, feminist legal theory, brown board education,