司法审查

James L. Wilson
{"title":"司法审查","authors":"James L. Wilson","doi":"10.23943/princeton/9780691190914.003.0012","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":185107,"journal":{"name":"Democratic Equality","volume":"16 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-09-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Judicial Review\",\"authors\":\"James L. Wilson\",\"doi\":\"10.23943/princeton/9780691190914.003.0012\",\"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\":185107,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Democratic Equality\",\"volume\":\"16 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-09-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Democratic Equality\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.23943/princeton/9780691190914.003.0012\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Democratic Equality","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.23943/princeton/9780691190914.003.0012","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本章评估立法的司法审查是否与政治平等相容。司法审查通常涉及一些法官群体的权利——通常是非常遥远的,如果有的话,选举授权——推翻选举产生的立法机构的行为。许多律师、哲学家和普通公民认为,在赋予非民选者权力而非民选者权力的过程中,这种审查是不民主的。本章认为,设计良好的司法审查制度可以与政治平等相容,尽管它涉及制度上的不平等,如果这种审查可靠地促进对公民判断的考虑,否则将被立法程序忽视。值得注意的是,这并不是说司法审查是正当的,因为它保护个人权利不受民主滥用。这种观点认为,司法审查是合理的,因为它有助于建立一个整体上比没有这种审查的政权更好地体现政治平等的政权。然而,如果要达到这一标准,美国和其他地方现有的司法审查制度可能需要改革。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信