Argument Against Judicial Reviews

Good Essays
Abstract
Judicial review allows judges to review the lawfulness of a decision or action by a public body exercising a public role. Judicial review is concerned with how the law is being applied, along with the procedures followed. It is known to be one of the most effective and powerful institutions capable of convincing a public body to review a decision and to a certain extent force them to take different actions. The power granted to judicial courts has allowed emerging controversy on behalf of many public segments since it is perceived as a threat to democracy and the legitimacy of the government and the according constitution. Therefore, questions like what are the reasons that drive governments to intentionally constrain themselves by
…show more content…
The paper sheds light on the power within the judicial system to protect rights and shape a platform for the public. Moreover, the sections framing the general concepts highlight the essence and nature of judicial reviews, not to replace legislation, but to compliment and separate the degrees of authority they both have to complete the system. Accordingly, this paper does not compare and contrast legislation and judicial reviews nor does it aim to overthrow legislative power, but instead it serves the purpose of explaining how judicial reviews are in fact democratic, capable of fulfilling legal responsibilities without becoming an alternative to governmental …show more content…
The first key argument presented states that people have a “right to an explanation and a right to challenge any infringement of their rights”. Consequently, they reason that the right to an explanation unwraps the likelihood of reconsideration to how the state has treated “victims of infringement” . Furthermore, the authors justify that only a judicial body with the power of review can recognize the right to an explanation because the judiciary is suited to address the explanatory requirements. The argument is then concluded to clarify that judicial review will most likely follow legislative deliberation. This argument restructures the first point on the characteristics that judiciaries

Related Documents

  • Decent Essays

    Contemporary Jurisprudence: Make Up Assignment for Seminar 2 My group presented the text of Dworkin: Dworkin tries to find a middle ground between Hart and Fullers’ theories, building his jurisprudence on an attack of Hart’s claim that the law consists only of rules. Like Fuller, Dworkin thinks that the law is inherently interpretative. Dworkin contends that in reality the materials available to judges are wider than only rules, and that in practice judges use principles and background justifications as well as rules to decide hard cases. Dworkin argues that by using the full range of legal materials available to judges, they will not have to rely on discretion and instead will be able to solve hard cases objectively in a principled way according…

    • 1259 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Yet, if the law is positivist, then arguably we are more inclined to Faithful Agent theory. This means that judges must concede to the will of Parliament, as they are the best institution for shaping laws in a pluralistic society. However, there is still room for movement, as judges may decide cases to guide behaviour in the penumbra of uncertainty. Consequently, it is possible to balance these extreme perspectives in reality, as institutions must place checks on one another. Ultimately, the extent to which judges and Parliament shape the law changes on where the line is drawn between protecting rights, and what we regard as politically constitutional and requiring state…

    • 1728 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    All of this is to illustrate that the courts only have select opportunities to rule on impactful policy issues, like malapportionment in Baker v Carr and like same sex marriage in Oberegfell v Hodges. (1) An opportunity like this is necessary in order for the court to exercise judicial activism, and any ruling in favor of the petitioner would be an act of judicial activism, as it would require one of the three aforementioned methods of ruling under judicial activism. In Baker v Carr the court’s ruling was an example of judicial activism. In Oberegfell v Hodges the court’s ruling was an example of judicial activism. (2) Also, based solely on the methods of the court can use to exercise judicial activism; the ruling in Oberegfell v Hodges meets all the criteria.…

    • 932 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Government Vs Constitution

    • 1410 Words
    • 6 Pages

    Jefferson’s first approach to constitutional interpretation is that each branch must decide for themselves the constitutionality of a law, “equally without appeal or control” from the other two branches. A branch is deemed the “rightful” expositor of the validity of the law, disregarding the opinions of the other branches. A strength of this is that each branch can interpret the Constitution for themselves and focus on how the Constitution relates to the interest they are focusing on. They are able to form stronger opinions, since they will not be second-guessing their opinions based on the input of the other branches. A disadvantage, as Jefferson points out, is that contradictory decisions may arise, which results in confusion and produces inconvenience.…

    • 1410 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Marmor's Argument Analysis

    • 2212 Words
    • 9 Pages

    Indeed, there are several more arguments I would like to have made to defend my stance, but I think the arguments I have made in this paper are the ones that cut closest to the true danger of removing judicial supremacy. Essentially, my argument is this. We need an institution responsible to set the boundaries for the legislative playing field. It does not make sense for the legislature to be the one to set its own boundaries because it will pervert the playing field to favor itself, perhaps by shifting boundaries to favor constituent majorities or by making the boundaries optional so it can cease more power for itself. Instead, we should have an impartial court to referee the legislative game we collectively…

    • 2212 Words
    • 9 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Essay On Judicial Review

    • 1438 Words
    • 6 Pages

    The aim of rule of law is to ensure that public officials and authorities exercise the powers conferred on them in accordance with the law, without exceeding the constitutional limits of such powers put in place by Parliament. Two of the most central means by which the rule of law is enforced are through judicial review and human rights law. Both act as agents of the rule of law by controlling the power of the state and protecting the rights and freedoms of its citizens. Over the course of this I essay I will first establish the procedures and principles of judicial review. I will then argue that the current procedures and principles in place are not entirely effective or sufficient for the benefit of the individual and therefore in need of being reformed.…

    • 1438 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    What Is Legal Positivism

    • 1678 Words
    • 7 Pages

    The reasons for establishing, changing and maintaining laws include moral reasons, e.g. preventing people from killing each other or stealing from each other. These reasons shape the concepts of law; hence law is not separable from morality as suggested by positivists. In the current world, there is a growing concern for the protection of human rights, duties, responsibility and freedom. The ideal role of the government is no longer to maintain peace as suggested by Hobbes, but also to protect the rights and freedoms of citizens as suggested by John Locke.…

    • 1678 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    The courts must declare the sense of the law, which means they play a major role in a law being passed (F78). The Antifederalist argue the judges of the Supreme Court are a vital part in the judiciary branch controlling the legislative branch and if need be, the Supreme Court could resort to determining what the extent of the powers of Congress are (AF 78). Next to permanency in office, otherwise known as tenure nothing could contribute more to the independence of the judges than their support…

    • 1059 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Scalia argues that the key to making a court democratic is by interpreting the Constitution according to the framers’ intent. Scalia writes, “words do have a limited range of meaning, and no interpretation that goes beyond that range is permissible” In other words, there are only so many ways to interpret a statute without going beyond what the legislature intended. In addition, Scalia addresses the concerns of critics when it comes to using ambiguous passages in the Constitution. Scalia replies by saying, “judges must do their best to figure out, first, the original meaning of laws and, second, the practical implications given new contexts for those original meanings.” To support that argument, Scalia cites the First Amendment…

    • 1449 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    In this essay I would argue that the judiciary should not use defence on matters of national security restricting the citizenry’s human rights and should fulfil its role as an independent check on the government in charge of safeguarding human rights. In the case…

    • 1936 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Decent Essays