Readers of Miriam Smith's article1 who have not also read our recent
book, The Charter Revolution and the Court Party, may conclude that she
is critical of everything in that book. This would be a mistake, since
nowhere in her article does she challenge the two central claims of the
book: (1) that there has been a “Charter revolution,” and (2) that
this revolution can be explained only in terms of a supporting
constituency. Smith accepts these central claims, which are made also by
Charles Epp in his fine book, The Rights Revolution: Lawyers, Activists,
and Supreme Courts in Comparative Perspective, a book Smith praises (9,
n. 12; 11). Smith disagrees primarily with our characterization of the
Charter revolution as undemocratic. She prefers Epp's view that the
rights revolution is democratic because it rests “on a support
structure that has a broad base in civil society” (11; quoting Epp,
Rights, 199) precisely, that is, because it is supported by
what we call a Court Party and Epp calls a “support structure for legal
mobilization.”