[SECTION 1: Introduction] Marbury v. Madison

[Kilo11]

I don't see judicial review as being in any way democratic, but I would argue that is a good thing. In many situations it is very difficult to find the line between a demos and a mere mob, and allowing a non-democratic (and by implication non-mob-controlled) body to review laws passed by the legislature or orders enacted by the president ensures that current sentiments or passions cannot be (as easily) used to distort or re-interpret the constitution in inappropriate ways. This is not to say that voters are always wrong or that judges would necessarily know any better, but in general it seems safe to say that judges will be less apt to be taken in by populist movements or mere rhetoric due to their training in cold analytical reasoning, and this makes them ideally suited to review the decisions of the other branches of government which are democratically elected. Moreover, the non-democratic nature of the courts means that SCOTUS can do what is actually true to the constitution without thinking twice about how the voters feel about it (granted, this could also be potentially dangerous), something that most other government officials cannot do. I think the final point in favor of judicial review is that there are many bits of the constitution that are, to be quite honest, almost impossible to understand unless one has a whole host of background information or can parse out the clauses well, something everyday citizens are not good at. As an example, take the 2nd Amendment (but purely as an example about the phrasing of these things; let's not get into a whole big thing about the 2nd Amendment). It says:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Now, I read a whole lot of stuff with very weird phrasing or just terribly long sentences with no end in sight (I am doing a PhD in philosophy) so I have some experience parsing out odd texts, but I really don't know how to exactly interpret that one. And given how obvious it is that people can be riled up to think just about anything about these things (2nd Amendment debates get a bit more ridiculous and caricature-like every year) it seems good that any laws passed on the subject can be reviewed by a handful of individuals not as easily taken in by propaganda or possibly false advertising campaigns (one way or the other). They might still be prejudicial towards one side, since they are still just people, but they will at least be more careful in their considerations.

[Love Mountain]

Judicial Reviews is extremely elitist in nature considering who gets to sit in the Supreme Court. I consider that to be a good thing, especially as a tool to balance out the other branches. It's important to understand that Democracy has to have its limits. Freedom, or as it is commonly referred to, liberty, has to have limits. The Founding Fathers were well aware of that and they compromised on where to draw these limits in the context of their time. As the Constitution is meant to be a changing document, the power of Judicial Review exists in part to enforce it and to define where the Constitution has power and where it does not.