the use of an injunction as a tool for securing such rights. As one critic persuasively argued, the Burger Court's federalism notions represent a return to the antinationalism of the past.
One suspects that at the core of this philosophy of government is nostalgia for a return to an earlier era; a conviction that by restricting the reach of national law the Court can insulate the status quo; that if matters were left to the states, people and institutions would again know their places.66
Our Federalism, like the standing doctrine, was manipulated by the Burger Court in order to eliminate the lower federal courts as guardians of constitutional rights. The Court used supposed--and poorly explained--federalism concerns to dismantle the congressional plan for protection of federal rights. In that effort to rid the federal courts of constitutional challenges to state action, the Burger Court simply forgot, as Justice Brennan observed, that "one of the strengths of our federal system is that it provides a double source of protection for the rights of our citizens" and that federalism "is not served when the federal half of that protection is crippled."67