1) Judicial review is a democratic process, Eugene Rostow ascertains, though it has often been portrayed as the opposite due to the undemocratic nature of the Supreme Court. Though the Court may decide the outcome of a case, this decision has to be implemented by the federal and/or state governments. Therefore, the legislative branch of government has the power to check the Supreme Court and the judicial branch.
2) In one "democratic" case, the Supreme Court , under Chief Justice John Marshall, decided in favor of the Cherokee tribe in the 1832 Worcester v. Georgia, declaring that it was unconstitutional for the state of Georgia to force Native Americans in the state off their lands. President Andrew Jackson then famously ignored the order and continued the federal government's policy of Indian removal.
3) Judicial review is undemocratic because many cases decided by the Supreme Court are not influenced by legislative or executive branch, the members of both representing the public. The members of the Supreme Court are also not democratically elected, instead being appointed by the executive, and serve life terms, unlike most public officials.
4) In Bush v. Gore, the Supreme Court "undemocratically" struck down the Florida Supreme Court's method of counting ballots during the 2000 election, essentially handing the presidency to George W. Bush.
5) I agree with the idea that the Supreme Court is not completely without limitations of its own. The Court may be essential to the creation or preservation of a policy, but it is, in essence, powerless to enforce its own rulings.
6) Looking on the other side of the issue, it is also fair to say that judicial review, in theory, is undemocratic. The power to decide and affect policy is in the control of unelected officials who can ignore the public view.
No comments:
Post a Comment