The power of judicial review, established by the U.S. Supreme Court in Marbury v.
Madison (1803), is often debated for its implications on democracy. Critics argue that allowing
unelected judges to nullify laws passed by elected representatives makes judicial review
antidemocratic. Judicial review is not antidemocratic: it is a vital component of the checks and
balances system designed by the framers of the Constitution. Judicial review is an important part
of the democratic system in America because it balances power among government branches and
is checked by constitutional amendments and public scrutiny.
In Marbury v. Madison, Chief Justice John Marshall declared, "It is emphatically the
province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is" (Marbury v. Madison, 1803).
This statement defined the court's role in interpreting the Constitution and ensured that laws
conform to constitutional principles. While some may argue this power is antidemocratic, it
actually upholds the idea of checks and balances within our government, because this power
does not inherently grant the judiciary supremacy over other branches but ensures that no branch
can act beyond its constitutional bounds. Federalist No. 78 supports this vieq when Alexander
Hamilton argues that the judiciary's role is "to keep the other branches of the government within
the limits assigned to them by the constitution" (Hamilton, Federalist No. 78). This suggests that
judicial review acts as a democratic safeguard rather than an antidemocratic tool because it
protects the Constitution from legislative or executive overreach.
Judicial review not only checks power within the government but is checked by the
possibility of constitutional amendments. If the public or Congress disagrees with a Supreme
Court decision, they can amend the Constitution. This process was described in David O'Brien's
"Storm Center," where he notes, "The amendment process provides a mechanism for correcting
judicial errors or overreaches" (O'Brien 156). This mechanism ensures that while the judiciary
can interpret the law, the ultimate power to change the Constitution rests with the people and
their elected representatives without disrupting democracy.
Public confidence in judicial decisions is crucial. The Bush v. Gore case in 2000 where
the Supreme Court decided the presidential election is controversial. Despite the outcome, the
nation accepted the decision, demonstrating the Court's legitimacy. Justice O'Connor in Bush v.
Gore stated, "Our consideration is limited to the present circumstances, for the problem of equal
protection in election processes generally presents many complexities" (Bush v. Gore, 2000),
showing the Court's awareness of its role in public trust and focusing on legal principles rather
than partisan outcomes. Furthermore, cases like Cooper v. Aaron (1958) demonstrate judicial
review's democratic nature by enforcing desegregation laws which revised state actions that
contradicted democratic and constitutional values. This case illustrates how judicial review can
be a tool for upholding democratic principles, not undermining them.
Judicial review is not antidemocratic. It is a constitutional mechanism that makes sure
that laws align with the Constitution, which is the fundamental document of American
democracy. The balance of power among branches, the amendment process, and the necessity for
courts to uphold public legitimacy all contribute to a system where judicial review reinforces
democratic governance.
Works Cited
Hamilton, Alexander. Federalist No. 78. 1788.
Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803).
Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000).
O'Brien, David M. Storm Center: The Supreme Court in American Politics. W.W. Norton &
Company, 2008.
