The Core Of The Case Against Judicial Review By Jeremy Waldron

486 Words2 Pages

Sophie Byrne
John Ward
POLI 100
29 March 2023
Two Week Essay Assignment Week 10 & 11

In "The Core of the Case Against Judicial Review," published in the Yale Law Journal, Jeremy Waldron argues against the concept of judicial review, which is a concept allowing courts to strike down laws that are deemed unconstitutional. Waldron argues that this concept undermines democracy and should be replaced by a system of parliamentary sovereignty; where the legislative branch holds the power to determine the final outcome when interpreting the constitution.

Waldron introduces his arguments by suggesting that judicial review has become an accepted part of modern constitutional theory, but overall it is fundamentally undemocratic because it takes decision-making power away from elected officials, by giving it to unelected judges. This, he says, is a violation of the principle of popular sovereignty, which states that the people should have the final say in how they are governed. Waldron infers that …show more content…

Brettschneider argues that judicial review can often enhance democracy by protecting the rights of minorities and ensuring that the majority does not overstep its bounds. He notes that democracy is not just about majority rule, but also about protecting the rights of individuals and minorities. Judicial review, he says, can help to ensure that these rights are not violated by the majority, and can help to prevent the tyranny of the majority that was feared by many of the framers of the US Constitution. Brettschneider also argues that judicial review can be seen as an extension of the principle of popular sovereignty, since it allows the people to hold their elected officials accountable by giving them the power to strike down laws that are deemed

Open Document