Readers of Miriam Smith's article1 who have not also read our recentbook, The Charter Revolution and the Court Party, may conclude that sheis critical of everything in that book. This would be a mistake, sincenowhere in her article does she challenge the two central claims of thebook: (1) that there has been a “Charter revolution,” and (2) thatthis revolution can be explained only in terms of a supportingconstituency. Smith accepts these central claims, which are made also byCharles 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 theCharter revolution as undemocratic. She prefers Epp's view that therights revolution is democratic because it rests “on a supportstructure that has a broad base in civil society” (11; quoting Epp,Rights, 199) precisely, that is, because it is supported bywhat we call a Court Party and Epp calls a “support structure for legalmobilization.”