Abstract

This article reviews the argument through which judicial review of legislation approved by popularly elected bodies, based on the authority of judges who are in a position of preeminence on the other branches of government, is contrary to democracy. Taking Jeremy Waldron's argument as a central reference, the author discusses some of the assumptions on which the democratic objection of judicial review is elaborated. He argues that separating the notion of constitutional supremacy from the idea of judicial supremacy would allow building a model that overcomes the democratic problem. The author reviews some alternatives provided by institutional designs, and analyses the problem inside the civil law legal tradition. He concludes that the debate about the democratic legitimacy of judicial review is a dynamic discussion, and its foundation depends on the movement of some specific variables that the author proposes.