Are there good procedural objections to judicial review?

Kathleen Doherty, Ryan Pevnick

    Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

    Abstract

    According to traditional arguments, judicial review is a legitimate element of representative government because it allows decisions about individual rights to be made in a venue more insulated from electoral pressure than are legislative institutions. The hope is that this insulation helps generate better outcomes than would a system of legislative supremacy. The relevance of this outcome-oriented perspective has been challenged on four main grounds: majoritarian, participatory, disagreement-based, and methodological. The first two contend that judicial review is procedurally illegitimate, while the second two argue that we should assess judicial review on procedural grounds. We show that none of these arguments undermine the traditional insulation-based and outcome-oriented approach to the question of judicial review's legitimacy.

    Original languageEnglish (US)
    Pages (from-to)86-97
    Number of pages12
    JournalJournal of Politics
    Volume76
    Issue number1
    DOIs
    StatePublished - Jan 2014

    Fingerprint

    legitimacy

    ASJC Scopus subject areas

    • Sociology and Political Science

    Cite this

    Are there good procedural objections to judicial review? / Doherty, Kathleen; Pevnick, Ryan.

    In: Journal of Politics, Vol. 76, No. 1, 01.2014, p. 86-97.

    Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

    Doherty, Kathleen ; Pevnick, Ryan. / Are there good procedural objections to judicial review?. In: Journal of Politics. 2014 ; Vol. 76, No. 1. pp. 86-97.
    @article{e9e29532f1c449cfb3569036e5c23dd1,
    title = "Are there good procedural objections to judicial review?",
    abstract = "According to traditional arguments, judicial review is a legitimate element of representative government because it allows decisions about individual rights to be made in a venue more insulated from electoral pressure than are legislative institutions. The hope is that this insulation helps generate better outcomes than would a system of legislative supremacy. The relevance of this outcome-oriented perspective has been challenged on four main grounds: majoritarian, participatory, disagreement-based, and methodological. The first two contend that judicial review is procedurally illegitimate, while the second two argue that we should assess judicial review on procedural grounds. We show that none of these arguments undermine the traditional insulation-based and outcome-oriented approach to the question of judicial review's legitimacy.",
    author = "Kathleen Doherty and Ryan Pevnick",
    year = "2014",
    month = "1",
    doi = "10.1017/S0022381613001084",
    language = "English (US)",
    volume = "76",
    pages = "86--97",
    journal = "Journal of Politics",
    issn = "0022-3816",
    publisher = "Cambridge University Press",
    number = "1",

    }

    TY - JOUR

    T1 - Are there good procedural objections to judicial review?

    AU - Doherty, Kathleen

    AU - Pevnick, Ryan

    PY - 2014/1

    Y1 - 2014/1

    N2 - According to traditional arguments, judicial review is a legitimate element of representative government because it allows decisions about individual rights to be made in a venue more insulated from electoral pressure than are legislative institutions. The hope is that this insulation helps generate better outcomes than would a system of legislative supremacy. The relevance of this outcome-oriented perspective has been challenged on four main grounds: majoritarian, participatory, disagreement-based, and methodological. The first two contend that judicial review is procedurally illegitimate, while the second two argue that we should assess judicial review on procedural grounds. We show that none of these arguments undermine the traditional insulation-based and outcome-oriented approach to the question of judicial review's legitimacy.

    AB - According to traditional arguments, judicial review is a legitimate element of representative government because it allows decisions about individual rights to be made in a venue more insulated from electoral pressure than are legislative institutions. The hope is that this insulation helps generate better outcomes than would a system of legislative supremacy. The relevance of this outcome-oriented perspective has been challenged on four main grounds: majoritarian, participatory, disagreement-based, and methodological. The first two contend that judicial review is procedurally illegitimate, while the second two argue that we should assess judicial review on procedural grounds. We show that none of these arguments undermine the traditional insulation-based and outcome-oriented approach to the question of judicial review's legitimacy.

    UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84891805679&partnerID=8YFLogxK

    UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84891805679&partnerID=8YFLogxK

    U2 - 10.1017/S0022381613001084

    DO - 10.1017/S0022381613001084

    M3 - Review article

    VL - 76

    SP - 86

    EP - 97

    JO - Journal of Politics

    JF - Journal of Politics

    SN - 0022-3816

    IS - 1

    ER -