Date of Award
2022
Document Type
Thesis
Degree Name
Bachelors
Department
Social Sciences
First Advisor
Gorup, Michael
Area of Concentration
Political Science
Abstract
The divide between proponents of and opponents to the American practice of judicial review has always been present throughout the United States’ history; only now has the divide become substantial enough to justify the formation of a commission by a current US President, tasked specifically with exploring the possibility of reforming the longstanding institution. One of the biggest questions at the center of this debate focuses on whether the US Supreme Court’s practice of American judicial review is a democratically legitimate one. Rather than providing a specific answer to this question, this thesis focuses on explaining the arguments in support of and in contention to the American practice of judicial review to provide a means by which unfamiliar scholars can better understand both sides of this centuries long debate. This is accomplished by bringing together two of the most influential voices in this debate, Ronald Dworkin and Jeremy Waldron. Dworkin supports the American practice of judicial review through his theory of the moral reading of the Constitution, whereas Waldron opposes the practice as democratically illegitimate and argues that the practice can easily be performed by the elected legislature without compromising democracy. The ideas presented by contemporary thinkers before the Presidential Commission, both for and against American judicial review, are brought together in the final chapter. To provide context on these contemporary arguments, the points of Dworkin and Waldron are reintroduced to analyze the contemporary reform suggestions through the lenses of their respective theories.
Recommended Citation
Shanahan, Rhys, "Exploring Legitimacy: A review of the debate around American judicial review" (2022). Theses & ETDs. 6302.
https://digitalcommons.ncf.edu/theses_etds/6302