About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

18 DIREITO GV L. Rev. 1 (2022)
The Core of the Case against Judicial Review

handle is hein.journals/direlaw18 and id is 651 raw text is: TRADUCOES : O cerne da posiyio contraria a revisao judicial THE CORE OF THE CASE AGAINST JUDICIAL REVIEW Jeremy Waldron' Traducio do texto: WALDRON, JEREMY. THE CORE OF THE CASE AGAINST JUDICIAL REVIEW. THE YALE LAW JOURNAL, V. 115, N. 6, P. 1346-1406, ABR. 2006. Traduy9o: Bruno da Cunha de Oliveira2, Daniel Wei Liang Wang3 e Jose Garcez Ghirardi' Resumo Este ensaio apresenta a posicao geral contraria a revisao judicial de legislacao de maneira clara e sem se deter em discussbes sobre decis6es especificas ou na his- t6ria de sua emergancia em sistemas especificos de direito constitucionaL. 0 ensaio critica a revisao judicial sob duas bases principais. Primeiro, argumenta-se que nao ha razao para supor que direitos sao mais bem protegidos por essa pratica do que por legislaturas democraticas. Em segundo lugar, argumenta-se que, inde- pendentemente dos resultados que ela gera, a revisao judicial 6 democraticamen- te ilegitima. 0 segundo argumento 6 conhecido; o primeiro, nao tanto. A posicao contraria a revisao judicial nao 6, contudo, absoluta ou incondicional. Neste ensaio, ela pressup6e diversas condicoes, incluindo as de que a sociedade em quest5o tenha instituic6es democraticas que funcionem bem e que a maioria de seus cidad5os leve os direitos a s6rio (mesmo se eles discordarem sobre quais direitos eles tam). Este ensaio finaliza examinando o que decorre da ausancia des- sas condicoes. Palavras-chave Revisao judicial; constitucionalismo; democracia; direitos; legislacao. Abstract This essay states the general case against judicial review of legislation clearly and in a way that is uncluttered by discussions of particular decisions or the his- tory of its emergence in particular systems of constitutional law. The essay criti- cizes judicial review on two main grounds. First, it argues that there is no reason to suppose that rights are better protected by this practice than they would be by democratic legislatures. Second, it argues that, quite apart from the outcomes it generates, judicial review is democratically illegitimate. The second argument is familiar; the first argument less so. However, the case against judicial review is not absolute or unconditional. In this Essay, it is premised on a number of conditions, including that the society in ques- tion has good working democratic institutions and that most of its citizens take rights seriously (even if they may disagree about what rights they have). The essay ends by considering what follows from the failure of these conditions. Keywords Judicial review; constitutionalism; democracy; rights; legislation. ESCOLA DE DIREITO DE SAO PAULO DA FUNDACAO GETULIO VARGAS REVISTA DIREITO GV I SAO PAULO I V. 18 N. 2 1 2022

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most