“These developments reflect a remedial ‘shell game’ where, as discrete remedies are reduced or limited, we are told that equally effective alternatives exist; nevertheless, when implementation of those remedies is at issue, the same justifications are provided for limiting those remedial measures. It is not difficult to present cogent arguments as to the discrete inefficiencies and adverse effects flowing from the broad application of any specific remedial measure. But when all remedies are restricted, the right is reduced to a dead letter. “

Source: David Rudovsky. Running In Place: The Paradox of Expanding Rights and Restricted Remedies. University of Illinois Law Review 5: 1199, 1226. 2005.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s