司法审查

Jonathan Leslie, J. Kingston
{"title":"司法审查","authors":"Jonathan Leslie, J. Kingston","doi":"10.2307/j.ctvdf0kn3.15","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This chapter assesses whether judicial review of legislation is compatible with political equality. Judicial review typically involves the right of some group of judges—often with very distant, if any, electoral authorization—to overturn acts of elected legislative authorities. In empowering the unelected over the elected, many lawyers, philosophers, and ordinary citizens believe that such review is undemocratic. The chapter argues that a well-designed system of judicial review could be compatible with political equality, despite the institutional inequalities it involves, if such review reliably promotes the consideration of citizens' judgments that would otherwise be neglected by the legislative process. Notably, this is not an argument that judicial review is justified because it protects individual rights from democratic abuse. It is an argument that judicial review is justified because it contributes to a regime that as a whole better instantiates political equality than would a regime without such review. However, the systems of judicial review in place in the United States and elsewhere likely require reform if they are to meet this standard.","PeriodicalId":179978,"journal":{"name":"Practical Guide to Litigation","volume":"92 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1983-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Judicial Review\",\"authors\":\"Jonathan Leslie, J. Kingston\",\"doi\":\"10.2307/j.ctvdf0kn3.15\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This chapter assesses whether judicial review of legislation is compatible with political equality. Judicial review typically involves the right of some group of judges—often with very distant, if any, electoral authorization—to overturn acts of elected legislative authorities. In empowering the unelected over the elected, many lawyers, philosophers, and ordinary citizens believe that such review is undemocratic. The chapter argues that a well-designed system of judicial review could be compatible with political equality, despite the institutional inequalities it involves, if such review reliably promotes the consideration of citizens' judgments that would otherwise be neglected by the legislative process. Notably, this is not an argument that judicial review is justified because it protects individual rights from democratic abuse. It is an argument that judicial review is justified because it contributes to a regime that as a whole better instantiates political equality than would a regime without such review. However, the systems of judicial review in place in the United States and elsewhere likely require reform if they are to meet this standard.\",\"PeriodicalId\":179978,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Practical Guide to Litigation\",\"volume\":\"92 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1983-08-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Practical Guide to Litigation\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvdf0kn3.15\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Practical Guide to Litigation","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvdf0kn3.15","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Judicial Review
This chapter assesses whether judicial review of legislation is compatible with political equality. Judicial review typically involves the right of some group of judges—often with very distant, if any, electoral authorization—to overturn acts of elected legislative authorities. In empowering the unelected over the elected, many lawyers, philosophers, and ordinary citizens believe that such review is undemocratic. The chapter argues that a well-designed system of judicial review could be compatible with political equality, despite the institutional inequalities it involves, if such review reliably promotes the consideration of citizens' judgments that would otherwise be neglected by the legislative process. Notably, this is not an argument that judicial review is justified because it protects individual rights from democratic abuse. It is an argument that judicial review is justified because it contributes to a regime that as a whole better instantiates political equality than would a regime without such review. However, the systems of judicial review in place in the United States and elsewhere likely require reform if they are to meet this standard.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
The European Court of Justice Insurance Litigation Arbitration Costs Alternative Dispute Resolution
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1