Do you support the concept of judicial review?

[Marokai Backbeat]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_review

[Torie]

Of course.

[tpfkaw]

Of course.

[Franzl]

Of course.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Curious as to the explanations from the no votes.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Curious as to the explanations from the no votes.

Brits or other people from countries where such a precedent doesn't really exist?

[Marokai Backbeat]

Curious as to the explanations from the no votes.

Brits or other people from countries where such a precedent doesn't really exist?

Well I guess I should clarify that I'd be curious to American no votes.

[Јas]

Curious as to the explanations from the no votes.

Brits or other people from countries where such a precedent doesn't really exist?

Judicial review is part of the English legal process, but is primarily concerned with executive and lower-level judicial activity. Acts of parliament cannot be judicially reviewed due to parliamentary supremacy - except in so far as they may be out of line with European law. 

[Torie]

Curious as to the explanations from the no votes.

Brits or other people from countries where such a precedent doesn't really exist?

Brits indeed have judicial review, and the concept of judicial precedent having the force and effect of law (to wit the common law), which the US of course inherited (Parliament did not realize the courts were publishing opinions and following them as if law because it was all in French until the mid 18th century, so Parliament never really caught on that its powers were being truncated until it was too late), but until recently did not have much in the way of written fundamental or Constitutional law (it was all very informal and very British) requiring supra majorities to overturn. That is the main difference.

[Torie]

Curious as to the explanations from the no votes.

Brits or other people from countries where such a precedent doesn't really exist?

Well I guess I should clarify that I'd be curious to American no votes.

Many opponents think that Congress has every right to interpret the Constitution and apply it without being second guessed by the courts. Does it make any sense? No.

[Mr. Taft Republican]

Judicial review has had a major hand in creating the country we live in, from Marbury v Madison onward.

[Eraserhead]

Yes, not that'd always agree with the conclusions of the courts, of course.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Curious as to the explanations from the no votes.

Brits or other people from countries where such a precedent doesn't really exist?

Judicial review certain exists in UK, Australia etc etc - I completely support it.

[Redalgo]

I support judicial review, although I do not believe the verdicts of judges should be derived mainly from the precedent set out by rulings in prior cases. For a Constitution to remain useful from one generation to the next it is important that the interpretations and fine details of it change over time so as to avoid having historic or contemporary rulings impede reasonable, culturally relevant adjustments in the future when the rationale behind the previous rulings may seem outdated.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Support.

It's more or less the system used in France, though the review is not systematic but must be asked for. Until recently, there was not a possibility of a a-posteriori constitutional control (the US system), but the system was recently introduced.

[courts]

In theory yes.