The Distracting Debate over Judicial Review

Date
2008
Language
American English
Embargo Lift Date
Department
Committee Members
Degree
Degree Year
Department
Grantor
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Found At
Abstract

The debate over judicial review includes theories that reject, as well as those that endorse, or are indifferent or mixed in evaluating judicial review. There are also a wide range of possible forms of judicial review, with varying scopes and strengths. Despite the prominence of such theories, this article will argue that all such theories are practically misguided. The game they allow people to play is not worth the candle thereby consumed. Briefly put, the rough idea is that once one controls for other relevant variables, the form of judicial review itself, if any, only minimally affects the overall moral value of the constitutional system. Thus, this article will not argue for or against any principled normative theory of judicial review on the merits. Instead, it will argue that the effort devoted to working out principled normative theories of judicial review would be more beneficial if devoted elsewhere. Considerations that can be separated from one's own principled normative theory of judicial review are normally judged far more morally weighty and rightly so.

Description
item.page.description.tableofcontents
item.page.relation.haspart
Cite As
39 University of Memphis Law Review 47
ISSN
Publisher
Series/Report
Sponsorship
Major
Extent
Identifier
Relation
Journal
Source
Alternative Title
Type
Article
Number
Volume
Conference Dates
Conference Host
Conference Location
Conference Name
Conference Panel
Conference Secretariat Location
Version
Full Text Available at
This item is under embargo {{howLong}}