I felt more confused coming out of this than coming in.
Using the courts, rather than electoral politics, is nothing new. In the US, Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) occurred because Plessy, a mixed-race man, deliberately boarded a train to challenge the validity of Louisiana's Separate Car Act of 1890. He lost the case, resulting in racial segregation laws that lasted for another 60+ years.
Doing so is not "lawfare". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawfare describes it as "the use of legal systems and institutions to damage or delegitimize an opponent, or to deter an individual's usage of their legal rights".
> the conflict that arises when judicial review contradicts an expressed majority will
The majority of voters is not the same as the majority of the affected population. Switzerland famously did not grant suffrage to women at federal level until the early 1970s, and the canton of Appenzell Innerrhoden didn't grant women the right to vote on local issues until 1991 after the federal court decision ordering them to change.
What does democracy mean if the courts can override the popular will of the voters and allow women to vote?
And, what do "experts" have to do with any of this? The courts have long looked to experts to make decisions. Does the author really want to toss out forensics and other expert witnesses?
Using the courts, rather than electoral politics, is nothing new. In the US, Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) occurred because Plessy, a mixed-race man, deliberately boarded a train to challenge the validity of Louisiana's Separate Car Act of 1890. He lost the case, resulting in racial segregation laws that lasted for another 60+ years.
Doing so is not "lawfare". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawfare describes it as "the use of legal systems and institutions to damage or delegitimize an opponent, or to deter an individual's usage of their legal rights".
> the conflict that arises when judicial review contradicts an expressed majority will
The majority of voters is not the same as the majority of the affected population. Switzerland famously did not grant suffrage to women at federal level until the early 1970s, and the canton of Appenzell Innerrhoden didn't grant women the right to vote on local issues until 1991 after the federal court decision ordering them to change.
What does democracy mean if the courts can override the popular will of the voters and allow women to vote?
And, what do "experts" have to do with any of this? The courts have long looked to experts to make decisions. Does the author really want to toss out forensics and other expert witnesses?