- We will send in 10–14 business days.
/images/books/12215129/9781785521478.jpg)
- Author: Benjamin Bricker
- Publisher: ECPR Press
- ISBN-10: 1785521470
- ISBN-13: 9781785521478
- Format: 15.6 x 23.4 x 1 cm, softcover
- Language: English
- SAVE -10% with code: EXTRA
Reviews
Description
Judicial review is increasingly prevalent in modern democratic government. Yet with unelected judges reviewing - and potentially overturning - the work of the people's representatives, it also has long been, in Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes' words, 'the gravest and most delicate' task that courts undertake. This book establishes a framework to consider the value of judicial review in modern democracy, grouping answers to this question into one of three main arguments, or 'visions' for judicial review: legalist; rights-protecting; and majoritarian. The strength of these visions is then tested with an original dataset of constitutional court outcomes from four European courts - Poland, Slovenia, the Czech Republic, and Latvia - to determine whether any vision meets its promise. In fact, there is surprising support for the potentially majoritarian benefits of judicial review - a finding that challenges much of our existing theory regarding the value of the courts in modern democracy.
EXTRA 10 % discount with code: EXTRA
The promotion ends in 20d.20:17:15
The discount code is valid when purchasing from 10 €. Discounts do not stack.
- Author: Benjamin Bricker
- Publisher: ECPR Press
- ISBN-10: 1785521470
- ISBN-13: 9781785521478
- Format: 15.6 x 23.4 x 1 cm, softcover
- Language: English English
Judicial review is increasingly prevalent in modern democratic government. Yet with unelected judges reviewing - and potentially overturning - the work of the people's representatives, it also has long been, in Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes' words, 'the gravest and most delicate' task that courts undertake. This book establishes a framework to consider the value of judicial review in modern democracy, grouping answers to this question into one of three main arguments, or 'visions' for judicial review: legalist; rights-protecting; and majoritarian. The strength of these visions is then tested with an original dataset of constitutional court outcomes from four European courts - Poland, Slovenia, the Czech Republic, and Latvia - to determine whether any vision meets its promise. In fact, there is surprising support for the potentially majoritarian benefits of judicial review - a finding that challenges much of our existing theory regarding the value of the courts in modern democracy.
Reviews