dc.contributor.author | Sherry, Suzanna | |
dc.date.accessioned | 2014-06-06T16:23:36Z | |
dc.date.available | 2014-06-06T16:23:36Z | |
dc.date.issued | 2005 | |
dc.identifier.citation | 70 Mo. L. Rev. 973 (2005) | en_US |
dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/1803/6433 | |
dc.description | article published in law journal | en_US |
dc.description.abstract | Two hundred years after its most famous invocation in Marbury v. Madison, judicial review has apparently lost its luster. Despite its global spread, it is in disrepute in its country of origin. The mainstream American academic attitude toward judicial review as practiced by the modern Supreme Court ranges from open hostility to a position similar to Winston Churchill's on democracy: It is the worst way to implement a Constitution, except for all the rest. This essay, part of a larger book project with Daniel Farber, provides one explanation of the source of the hostility, defends judicial review against its critics, and makes a few suggestions for improvement. | en_US |
dc.format.extent | 1 PDF (17 pages) | en_US |
dc.format.mimetype | application/pdf | |
dc.language.iso | en_US | en_US |
dc.publisher | Missouri Law Review | en_US |
dc.subject.lcsh | Judicial review -- United States | en_US |
dc.subject.lcsh | Separation of powers -- United States | en_US |
dc.subject.lcsh | Marbury, William, 1761 or 1762-1835 -- Trials, litigation, etc. | en_US |
dc.subject.lcsh | Madison, James, 1751-1836 -- Trials, litigation, etc. | en_US |
dc.title | Politics and Judgment | en_US |
dc.type | Article | en_US |
dc.identifier.ssrn-uri | http://ssrn.com/abstract=872752 | |