Without judicial review, would the Constitution be enforcable?

[MarkD]

No, it would not be worthless, it would still be enforced, because Congress, the President and his cabinet, still have interpretations of the Constitution of their own. Their respective interpretations of the Constitution are not always wrong, it's just that their interpretations are more often tainted and biased by political passions.

The judicial branch exercises judicial review and does so -- ostensibly -- without bias, neutrally, and with objectivity. That is what they are supposed to do. And that is supposed to mean that the whole country can feel more confidence in the accuracy of the judiciary's interpretation, and to trust the decisions. Unfortunately, too many Presidents choose who to appoint to the judicial branch based on a desire to see the Court tilt in the President's ideological direction. The party's base of supporters reinforce that desire. The result is a judiciary that is not any more objective and neutral and trustworthy than the other two branches. We might as well be holding national elections for the seats on the Supreme Court if the Presidents keep on doing that.

In 1932, President Herbert Hoover appointed New York Court of Appeals Judge Benjamin Cardozo to the Supreme Court, and that appointment was probably the best choice, made for the right reason, of any appointment made in the 20th or 21st Centuries.