James Waldron's The Core Case Against Judicial Review
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 constitutional means” and “why would democratic majorities restrict their political choices by placing their faith in unelected judges” have brought the spherical platform for debate.
It 's been highly argued that the nature of a judicial review opposes "democracy" and what a democratic system is expected to entail. The arguments …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