反对司法审查的核心理由

本文清楚地阐述了反对立法的司法审查的核心理由，适些理由是在特殊宪法体系下，封特殊决策和司法审查出现的历史的简洁讨论中得出的。本文批判司法审查基于两个基础：第一，文章主张没有理由认为由司法审查保护权利能比由民主的立法机关做得更好。第二，本文认为，除了产生的结果外，司法审查是民主但不正当的。然而，反对司法审查的理由也不是绝对或者无条件的。在本文中，这些理由以若干条件为前提，包括假定社会有着运作良好的民主机构，社会申的大部分公民认真对待权利（即使他们可能并不赞同他们拥有的权利）。文章末尾则讨论这些前提条件丧失时会出现的情形。

The core of the case against judicial review

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 history of its emergence in particular systems of constitutional law. The Essay criticizes 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 question 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.