Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

Democracy and Judicial Review: Are They Really Incompatible?

  • Annabelle Lever (a1)

Abstract

This article shows that judicial review has a democratic justification, although it is not necessary for democratic government and its virtues are controversial and often speculative. Against critics like Waldron and Bellamy, it shows that judges, no less than legislators, can embody democratic forms of representation, accountability and participation. Hence, judicial review is not undemocratic simply because it enables unelected judges to over-rule elected legislators when people disagree about rights. Against recent defenders of judicial review, such as Eisgruber and Brettschneider, it shows that democratic arguments for judicial review do not require judges to be better at protecting rights than legislators. Hence a democratic justification for judicial review does not depend on complex and inevitably controversial interpretations and evaluations of judicial as opposed to legislative judgments. Democratic government does not demand special virtue, competence or wisdom in its citizens or their leaders. From a democratic perspective, therefore, the case for judicial review is that it enables individuals to vindicate their rights against government in ways that parallel those they commonly use against each other. This makes judicial review normatively attractive whether or not it leads to better decisions than would be made by other means.

Copyright

References

Hide All
Bellamy, Richard. 2007. Political Constitutionalism: A Republican Defence of the Constitutionality of Democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Brettschneider, Corey. 2007. Democratic Rights and the Substance of Self-Government. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Cohen, Joshua. 1994. Pluralism and proceduralism. Chicago-Kent Law Review 69 (3): 589618.
Cohen, Joshua. 2003. Procedure and substance in deliberative democracy. In Philosophy and Democracy: An Anthology, ed. Christiano, T.. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Cohen, Joshua, and Rogers, Joel. 1992. Secondary associations in democratic governance. Politics and Society 20: 393472.
Cowley, Philip, ed. 1998. Conscience and Parliament. London: Frank Cass.
Cretney, Steven. 1998. Law, Law Reform and the Family. New York: Oxford University Press.
Dahl, Robert. 1980. Democracy and Its Critics. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Dandridge v. Williams. 397. U.S., 471. (1970).
Duxbury, Neil. 2008. The Nature and Authority of Precedent. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dworkin, Ronald. 1986. Law's Empire. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Dworkin, Ronald. 1996. Freedom's Law: The Moral Reading of the American Constitution. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Eisgruber, Christopher L. 2001. Constitutional Self-Government. Harvard: Harvard University Press.
Ely, John H. 1980. Democracy and Distrust. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Eylon, Yuval, and Harel, Alon. 2006. The right to judicial review. Virginia Law Review 92 (5): 143.
Fabre, Cecile. 2000a. A philosophical argument for a Bill of Rights. British Journal of Political Science 30: 7798.
Fabre, Cecile. 2000b. The dignity of rights. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 20 (2): 271–82.
Friedman, Barry. 2005. The politics of judicial review. Texas Law Review 84: 2.
Fuller, Lon L. 1978–79. The forms and limits of adjudication. Harvard Law Review 92: 353409.
Fung, Archon. 2004. Empowered Participation: Reinventing Urban Democracy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Garrow, David J. 1998. Liberty and Sexuality: The Right to Privacy and the Making of Roe v. Wade. California: University of California.
Harel, Alon. 2003. Rights-based judicial review: A democratic justification. Law and Philosophy 22.
Harel, Alon, and Kahana, Tsvi. n.d. “The Real Case for Judicial Review: A Plea for Non-Instrumentalist Justification in Constitutional Theory.” Unpublished ms.
Kaplan, Morris B. 1997. Sexual Justice: Democratic Citizenship and the Politics of Desire. New York: Routledge.
Kavanagh, Aileen. 2003. Participation and judicial review: A reply to Jeremy Waldron. Law and Philosophy 22.
Kornhauser, Lewis, and Sager, Lawrence G.. 1993. The one and the many: Adjudication in collegial courts. California Law Review 81: 151.
Kramer, Larry D. 2004. The People Themselves: Popular Constitutionalism and Judicial Review. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Le Sueur, Andrew. 2004. Developing mechanisms for judicial accountability in the UK. Legal Studies 24: 7398.
Lever, Annabelle. 2007a. Mill and the secret ballot: Beyond coercion and corruption. Utilitas 19 (3): 354–78.
Lever, Annabelle. 2007b. Is judicial review undemocratic? Public Law 2: 280–98.
Lever, Annabelle. 2009. Racial profiling and jury trials. The Jury Expert 21 (1): 2035.
Lever, Annabelle. Forthcoming. Compulsory voting: A critical perspective. British Journal of Political Science 40 (1): Jan 2010.
Lochner v. New York. 198 U. S., 45, (1905).
MacKinnon, Catherine A. 1987. Feminism Unmodified: Discourses on Life and Law. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Manin, Bernard. 1997. Principles of Representative Government. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mansbridge, Jane. 1999. Should blacks represent blacks and women represent women? A contingent “yes.” Journal of Politics 61: 628–57.
Mansbridge, Jane. 2003. Rethinking representation. American Political Science Review 97 (4): 515–28.
Maravall, Jose M., and Przeworski, Adam, eds. 2003. Democracy and the Rule of Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Marsh, David, and Read, Mervyn. 1985. British Private Members balloted Bills: A lottery with few winners, small prizes, but high administrative vosts. Essex Papers in Politics and Government 21.
Norton, Philip. 2005. Parliament in British Politics. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Okin, Susan M. 1986. Justice, Gender and the Family. New York: Basic Books.
O'Neill, Onora. 2002. A Question of Trust: The BBC Reith Lectures, 2002. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Phillips, Anne. 1995. The Politics of Presence. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Powell, George Bingham. 2000. Elections as Instruments of Democracy. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Richards, Peter. G. 1971. Parliament and Conscience. London: Allen and Unwin.
Rousseau, Jean-Jacques. 1987. The Basic Political Writings. Indianapolis: Hackett.
San Antonio v. Rodriguez. 441 U.S., (1975).
Sinnott-Armstrong, Walter. 2003. Weak and strong judicial review. Law and Philosophy 22: 381–92.
Stears, Marc. 2007. Liberalism and the politics of compulsion. British Journal of Political Science 37: 533–53.
Steel, David. 1966. Hansard. HC. 732. July 22, 1966.
Thompson, Dennis F. 2002. Just Elections: Creating a Fair Electoral Process in the United States. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Tribe, Lawrence. 1996. American Constitutional Law. Minneapolis: West Publishing Co.
Tushnet, Mark. 1980. Darkness on the edge of town: The contributions of John Hart Ely to constitutional theory. Yale Law Journal 89 (6): 1037–62.
Tushnet, Mark. 1999. Taking the Constitution Away From the Courts. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Underkuffler, Laura S. 2003. Moral rights, judicial review and democracy: A response to Horacio Spector. Law and Philosophy 22: 335.
Unger, Roberto M. 1986. The Critical Legal Studies Movement. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Vanberg, Georg. 2005. The Politics of Constitutional Review in Germany. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Waldron, Jeremy. 1993. Rights and majorities: Rousseau revisited. In Liberal Rights: Collected Papers 1981–1991. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Waldron, Jeremy. 1995. The Dignity of Legislation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Waldron, Jeremy. 1999. Law and Disagreement. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Waldron, Jeremy. 2006. The core of the case against judicial review. Yale Law Journal 115 (6): 1346.
Williams, Melissa S. 1998. Voice, Trust and Memory: Marginalized Groups and the Failings of Liberal Representation. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Young, Iris M. 2000. Inclusion and Democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Democracy and Judicial Review: Are They Really Incompatible?

  • Annabelle Lever (a1)

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed