司法最低限度主义——评桑斯坦的《就事论事——美国最高法院的司法最低限度主义》

为证立司法审查制度的正当性,美国学界以往司法审查理论认为,代议制民主过程不可信任,必须由司法权对民主立法进行有效的宪法监督,以保障民主价值目标的实现.桑斯坦则认为,民主过程固然不可信任,但由于司法能力的有限性,最高法院应采取一种最低限度主义的裁决方法,一次一案式地裁决具体案件,避免原则性判决,将社会价值选择问题交由民意机关互动协商解决,以减少错误判决可能导致的严重社会后果,同时培养民意机关的民主协商精神和公民的参政素质,塑造一个健康民主的社会.与其他司法审查理论相比,司法最低限度主义更有效地论证了司法审查制度的正当性.不过,这一理论本身也有其缺陷.

Commentary on Judicial Minimalism Supported by Case R. Sunstein

To argue for the legitimacy of judicial review,theories relating to judicial review upheld by American academic community in the past maintained that the cause of representative democracy was incredible,the need for effective constitutional supervision over democratic law-making by judicial power,thus,becomes a must,so to guarantee the realization of the objective of democratic value.Sunstein agreed with the argument but he also proposed that the Supreme Court should adopt judicial minimalism in making decisions,since judicial capacity is limited.The method of "one case at a time" can avoid decisions made in principle and give the issue of choice of social value to organs of public opinion to resolve through interacting and consultation.In this way,serious social consequence resulted from incorrect decision may be reduced and meanwhile,the spirit of democratic consultation and quality of participating in political affairs by citizens may also be cultivated.A healthy democratic society is,therefore,build up.In comparison to other theories relating to judicial review,judicial minimalism can better prove the legitimacy of the system of judicial review.Nevertheless,the notion itself also carries some shortcomings.