Political Studies 53:423-451 (2005)

Authors
Corey Brettschneider
Brown University
Abstract
Democratic theorists often distinguish between two views of democratic procedures. ‘Outcomes theorists’ emphasize the instrumental nature of these procedures and argue that they are only valuable because they tend to produce good outcomes. In contrast, ‘proceduralists’ emphasize the intrinsic value of democratic procedures, for instance, on the grounds that they are fair. In this paper. I argue that we should reject pure versions of these two theories in favor of an understanding of the democratic ideal that recognizes a commitment to both intrinsically valuable democratic procedures and democratic outcomes. In instances in which there is a conflict between these two commitments, I suggest they must be balanced. This balancing approach offers a justification of judicial review on the grounds that it potentially limits outcomes that undermine democracy. But judicial review is not justifiable in any instance in which a bad democratic outcome results from democratic procedures. When the loss that would result from overturning a democratic procedure is greater than the gain to democracy that would result from ensuring against an undemocratic outcome; judicial review is not justifiable. Loss or gain to democracy is defined by the negative or positive impact of each action on the core democratic values of equality and autonomy, aspects of the democratic ideal. Even when judicial review is justified, the fact that it overturns intrinsically valuable procedures suggests that such review is never ideal from the standpoint of democracy.
Keywords judicial review  democracy  procedures  outcomes  liberalism  supreme court
Categories (categorize this paper)
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Translate to english
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

 PhilArchive page | Other versions
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Can Youth Quotas Help Avoid Future Disasters?Ivo Wallimann-Helmer - 2015 - Intergenerational Justice Review 1 (1):47-56.
On the Value of Constitutions and Judicial Review.Laura Valentini - 2017 - Criminal Law and Philosophy 11 (4):817-832.

View all 6 citations / Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Disagreement and Epistemic Arguments for Democracy.Sean Ingham - 2013 - Politics, Philosophy and Economics 12 (2):136-155.
The Value Theory of Democracy.Corey Brettschneider - 2006 - Politics, Philosophy and Economics 5 (3):259-278.
Raz on Authority and Democracy.David Rondel - 2012 - Dialogue 51 (2):211-230.
Problems in the Theory of Democratic Authority.Christopher S. King - 2012 - Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 15 (4):431 - 448.
Problems of the Structure and Hierarchy of Democratic Values.Alexander S. Madatov - 2008 - Proceedings of the Xxii World Congress of Philosophy 50:445-449.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2010-09-23

Total views
1,270 ( #4,509 of 2,519,513 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
28 ( #31,387 of 2,519,513 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes