Is Judicial Review Democratic

Is Judicial Review Democratic

Introduction

Is judicial review democratic? When independent judges should permit to struggle and resist the decisions taken by elected executives or elected legislatures. This question is of huge theoretical and practical interest. This subject matter is widely studied in literature where researchers used several US Constitutional theories, and highlighted salience globally as the influence and power of courts across the globe. Several have supported judicial review as a mean to correct or reduce predictable, systematic failures in executive and legislative decision making; thus, reduce the difference between policy options and those that representative democracy. On this perspective, appropriately designed judicial review can rationalize on a democratic basis; yet, if judicial review is not itself a democratic institution. On the contrary, opponents have stated that judicial review persuaded to strengthen rather than restructure failures of democracy and that the judicial review costs usually surpass advantages it may have.

In the first chapter, this paper provides a brief overview of what is judicial review. In the second chapter, researcher sheds a light on the history of the US Constitution on judicial review. Later section discusses why there is judicial review in America. Then, this study provides an argument for and against judicial review. In the last section, this paper argues how judicial review can fit in a democracy.



Discussion

What is Judicial Review?

Judicial review is a type of court proceeding where the lawfulness of an action or decision taken by a judge or public body is reviewed. Generally speaking, judicial reviews can be applicable where: (1) there is no proper alternative remedy, and (2) on the basis of accusation, a challenge is made that the public body has made illegitimate decision or taken illegal action.

Alternative remedies can be an appeal to the tribunal in cases of social security, complaints procedures and others. If none of alternative remedies are appropriate in a case then a person is able to bring a claim of judicial review. A person may require advice from a solicitor who specializes in this area on whether or not a person has reasons to challenge a decision and action taken by the public body.

Judicial review does not engage the court in making a decision whether the public body has made the “correct” or “right” decision; however, if the correct basis of legitimate has employed in achieving it. It is an obstacle to the way where a judgment or verdict has made. It is not actually concerned with the process conclusion, and whether the decision was right until and unless, the right procedures have pursued and the law has rightly applied. The judiciary will not substitute what it believes is the “right” verdict. This can refer that the public body will be able to take the same ruling again until it follows legitimate procedures and process.

As stated above, judicial review can be pertinent where an illegitimate action or decision has made by a public body, in the absence of alternative ...