The decision of the majority of the Supreme Court in Baker v. Carr, the recently decided Tennessee Reapportionment Case, may well turn out to be one of the landmark decisions of American jurisprudence. If by reason of apathetic acquiescence such a judicial intrusion is permitted to go unchallenged and undebated, our federal system of limited and constitutional government may be further weakened. Although the balance of power as between the states and the national government has shifted and this shift has been reflected in and furthered by judicial interpretation of our Constitution, it seems questionable that such a far-reaching and "massive repudiation of our whole past" should be accomplished by so few at the expense of so many. In the realm of value choices, judges are scarcely better equipped than laymen to pronounce authoritative judgments. In our system such choices have been generally left to the people speaking through their representatives in conventions and assemblies or to the slow but satisfying adjustments effected by an aroused public opinion.
What's Wrong With Baker v. Carr?,
15 Vanderbilt Law Review
Available at: https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/vlr/vol15/iss4/8