Abstract
The case I make for judicial review avoids what I, among others, see as the basic flaw in most of the justifications that have been offered previously. It does not rely on the notion that judges are more enlightened than legislators in respect to the resolution of rights questions. It does not hold that judicial insight is such that, with judicial review, outcomes are more likely to treat individuals with equal concern and respect. This means that the “fact of reasonable disagreement on rights” objection cannot be leveled at my case in the way that it can be leveled at legal constitutionalist cases. The republican understanding of democracy upon which I build my case not only accounts for this fact of disagreement, it relies quite heavily on it. In turn, my case relies on that fact of disagreement.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
