2006•The Yale Law JournalOpen access

The Core of the Case against Judicial Review

Jeremy Waldron

Open full text 1,268 citations

Abstract

This Essay states the general case against judicial review of legislation clearly and in a way that is uncluttered by discussions of particular decisions or the history of its emergence in particular systems of constitutional law.The Essay criticizes judicial review on two main grounds.First, it argues that there is no reason to suppose that rights are better protected by this practice than they would be by democratic legislatures.Second, it argues that, quite apart from the outcomes it generates, judicial review is democratically illegitimate.The second argument is familiar; the first argument less so.However, the case against judicial review is not absolute or unconditional.In this Essay, it is premised on a number of conditions, including that the society in question has good working democratic institutions and that most of its citizens take rights seriously (even if they may disagree about what rights they have).The Essay ends by considering what follows from the failure of these conditions.

Open-access reader

About this research paper

What this paper is about

This Essay states the general case against judicial review of legislation clearly and in a way that is uncluttered by discussions of particular decisions or the history of its emergence in particular systems of constitutional law.The Essay criticizes judicial review on two main grounds.First, it argues that there is no reason to suppose that rights are better protected by this practice than they would be by democratic legislatures.Second, it argues that, quite apart from the outcomes it generates, judicial review is democratically illegitimate.The second argument is familiar; the first argument less so.However, the case against judicial review is not absolute or unconditional.In this Essay, it is premised on a number of conditions, including that the society in question has good working democratic institutions and that most of its citizens take rights seriously (even if they may disagree about what rights they have).The Essay ends by considering what follows from the failure of these conditions.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 1268 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

This Essay states the general case against judicial review of legislation clearly and in a way that is uncluttered by discussions of particular decisions or the history of its emergence in particular systems of constitutional law.The Essay criticizes judicial review on two main grounds.First, it argues that there is no reason to suppose that rights are better protected by this practice than they would be by democratic legislatures.Second, it argues that, quite apart from the outcomes it generates, judicial review is democratically illegitimate.The second argument is familiar; the first argument less so.However, the case against judicial review is not absolute or unconditional.In this Essay, it is premised on a number of conditions, including that the society in question has good working democratic institutions and that most of its citizens take rights seriously (even if they may disagree about what rights they have).The Essay ends by considering what follows from the failure of these conditions.

Key concepts: Core (optical fiber), Political science, Law, Computer science, Telecommunications

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
The Core of the Case against Judicial Review — Research Paper | ScholarLens