Reynold's charges that this new jurisprudence has turned its back on the Constitution and created a law that is 'the result only of judicial opinion informed by evolving standards of morality.' He expresses disagreement with egalitarian jurisprudence as too concerned with the future and unduly focused on the power of the judiciary. Contrary to Reynold's assertion, this new jurisprudence does show a concern for history that focuses on the application to present circumstances of the historic and fundamental principals that provided a framework for the foundation of our democratic republic. These principals include an essential component of judicial review that requires the judiciary to apply the principals of the Constitution to current problems. Similarly, a concern for limited Government and the separation of powers as guarantors of individual liberties does not require that courts not act in the face of a history of constitutional violations to ensure that constitutional goals are achieved. The judiciary was not intended by the framers to be so limited that it cannot act to guarantee the enjoyment of individual rights. One such area in which action by the courts has been required is that of racial discrimination. 95 footnotes.