@inbook{11452,
  author = {Keith Whittington},
  title = {"Preserving the Dignity and Influence of the Court": Political Supports for Judicial Review in the United States},
  abstract = { <p>A central philosophical objection to judicial review and constitutional interpretation by courts rests on concerns for democracy. The regular judicial nullification of policies adopted by elected officials at least suggests problems of democratic legitimacy. The philosophical objection has been raised against a background of over a hundred years of populist political argument in the United States holding that active use of the judicial power of constitutional interpretation should give way to the judgments of electoral and legislative majorities. Nonetheless, judicial review in the United States has thrived. This paper explores the political supports for judicial review by the Supreme Court in American history. Although active judicial review may appear problematic from a democratic perspective, political leaders have often lent their support to the courts and sought to bolster the authority of the judiciary to give meaning to the Constitution.</p> },
  year = {2006},
  journal = {Rethinking Political Institutions},
  publisher = {NYU Press},
  address = {New York},
  language = {eng},
}