Judicial review is a court’s power to review, and possibly nullify, laws and governmental acts that violate the constitution and higher norms. It is a way to assure that governmental actors respect the constitution and do not use powers granted to them by the constitution to seize illegitimate power. Judicial review is generally the final word by a governmental institution on a law’s validity.
The power of judicial review can be given to all courts or to a single tribunal known as a constitutional court. The first option requires that the entire judiciary be well educated, professional, and well versed in constitutional issues. It is therefore not suitable for contemporary USA (Patrick, Remy).
Others argue that specialized constitutional courts, composed of individuals known for their probity and their support for the rule of law and democratic principles, have helped stabilize many new democracies. Whatever court has judicial review power should be independent of other governmental actors. Its members should have fixed salaries, immunity from prosecution, and authority to control court budgets and staffing. Judges should not be members of political parties (Raskin).
Appointments to the court could be made by the executive alone; by the executive based on recommendations by the legislature or the judiciary; or by the agreement of the executive and the legislature, preferably requiring a significant super-majority for approval (two thirds or three quarters). Judges should serve lengthy non-renewable terms (perhaps between nine and twelve years). The possibility of a second term can undermine a judge’s independence in the first term. Life terms create problems of superannuation and stagnation. Appointees should be lawyers of repute, including legal scholars.
A court can exercise judicial review either immediately after a law is passed, at the request of a group of legislators, or once the law has gone into effect.......
