What's So Bad About Judicial Review?

6 Pages Posted: 26 Nov 2010

See all articles by Jonathan Crowe

Jonathan Crowe

University of Southern Queensland - School of Law and Justice

Abstract

Rights-based judicial review has been widely criticised for allowing unelected judges to impose their moral and political views on the community. This article offers a moderate defence of this form of judicial review, arguing that the case against it is typically overstated. Judicial discretion on rights issues is not nearly as harmful or pervasive as its opponents sometimes make out. Furthermore, while the elected legislature does possess an inherent form of democratic legitimacy, this falls far short of justifying an unqualified hold on government power.

Keywords: judicial review, countermajoritarian difficulty, separation of powers, Hayek, Waldron

Suggested Citation

Crowe, Jonathan, What's So Bad About Judicial Review?. Policy, Vol. 24, No. 4, pp. 30-35, 2008, University of Queensland TC Beirne School of Law Research Paper No. 10-39, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1714736

Jonathan Crowe (Contact Author)

University of Southern Queensland - School of Law and Justice ( email )

West Street
Toowoomba, Queensland 4350
Australia

HOME PAGE: http://jonathancrowe.org/

Do you have negative results from your research you’d like to share?

Paper statistics

Downloads
613
Abstract Views
4,204
Rank
80,234
PlumX Metrics