论文部分内容阅读
为证立司法审查制度的正当性,美国学界以往司法审查理论认为,代议制民主过程不可信任,必须由司法权对民主立法进行有效的宪法监督,以保障民主价值目标的实现。桑斯坦则认为,民主过程固然不可信任,但由于司法能力的有限性,最高法院应采取一种最低限度主义的裁决方法,一次一案式地裁决具体案件,避免原则性判决,将社会价值选择问题交由民意机关互动协商解决,以减少错误判决可能导致的严重社会后果,同时培养民意机关的民主协商精神和公民的参政素质,塑造一个健康民主的社会。与其他司法审查理论相比,司法最低限度主义更有效地论证了司法审查制度的正当性。不过,这一理论本身也有其缺陷。
In order to establish the legitimacy of the judicial review system, the judicial review theory in the academic circles of the United States holds that the process of representative democracy can not be trusted and that the constitutional supervision of democratic legislation must be carried out by judicial power in order to guarantee the realization of the democratic value goal. Sunstein argues that although the democratic process can not be trusted, due to the limited judicial capacity, the Supreme Court should adopt a minimalist method of awarding cases, deciding specific cases on a case-by-case basis, avoiding judgments of principle, choosing social values The problem should be solved through the interaction and consultation among public opinion organs in order to reduce the serious social consequences that the wrong verdict may cause. At the same time, we should cultivate the democratic consultation of public opinion organs and the quality of participating citizens in politics so as to create a healthy and democratic society. Compared with other judicial review theories, judicial minimalism proves the legitimacy of judicial review system more effectively. However, this theory itself has its own flaws.