@book{bricker_visions_2015,
	address = {S.l.},
	edition = {1st edition},
	title = {Visions of {Judicial} {Review}: {A} {Comparative} {Examination} of {Courts} and {Policy} in {Democracies}},
	isbn = {978-1-78552-147-8},
	shorttitle = {Visions of {Judicial} {Review}},
	abstract = {Judicial review is increasingly prevalent in modern democratic government. Yet, with unelected judges reviewing - and potentially overturning - the work of the people's representatives, it also has long been, in Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes' words, 'the gravest and most delicate' task that courts undertake. This book establishes a framework to consider the value of judicial review in modern democracy, grouping answers to this question into one of three main arguments, or 'visions' for judicial review: legalist; rights-protecting; and majoritarian. The strength of these visions is then tested with an original dataset of constitutional court outcomes from four European courts - Poland, Slovenia, the Czech Republic, and Latvia - to determine whether any vision meets its promise. In fact, there is surprising support for the potentially majoritarian benefits of judicial review - a finding that challenges much of our existing theory regarding the value of the courts in modern democracy.},
	language = {English},
	publisher = {ECPR Press},
	author = {Bricker, Benjamin},
	month = dec,
	year = {2015},
	file = {Bricker_Chapter_1.pdf:files/53579/Bricker_Chapter_1.pdf:application/pdf}
}

{"_id":"ddiJL6yAnP5yaAyWw","bibbaseid":"bricker-visionsofjudicialreviewacomparativeexaminationofcourtsandpolicyindemocracies-2015","downloads":0,"creationDate":"2016-09-09T06:27:35.316Z","title":"Visions of Judicial Review: A Comparative Examination of Courts and Policy in Democracies","author_short":["Bricker, B."],"year":2015,"bibtype":"book","biburl":"https://www.sfu.ca/~howlett/howlett16.bib","bibdata":{"bibtype":"book","type":"book","address":"S.l.","edition":"1st edition","title":"Visions of Judicial Review: A Comparative Examination of Courts and Policy in Democracies","isbn":"978-1-78552-147-8","shorttitle":"Visions of Judicial Review","abstract":"Judicial review is increasingly prevalent in modern democratic government. Yet, with unelected judges reviewing - and potentially overturning - the work of the people's representatives, it also has long been, in Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes' words, 'the gravest and most delicate' task that courts undertake. This book establishes a framework to consider the value of judicial review in modern democracy, grouping answers to this question into one of three main arguments, or 'visions' for judicial review: legalist; rights-protecting; and majoritarian. The strength of these visions is then tested with an original dataset of constitutional court outcomes from four European courts - Poland, Slovenia, the Czech Republic, and Latvia - to determine whether any vision meets its promise. In fact, there is surprising support for the potentially majoritarian benefits of judicial review - a finding that challenges much of our existing theory regarding the value of the courts in modern democracy.","language":"English","publisher":"ECPR Press","author":[{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Bricker"],"firstnames":["Benjamin"],"suffixes":[]}],"month":"December","year":"2015","file":"Bricker_Chapter_1.pdf:files/53579/Bricker_Chapter_1.pdf:application/pdf","bibtex":"@book{bricker_visions_2015,\n\taddress = {S.l.},\n\tedition = {1st edition},\n\ttitle = {Visions of {Judicial} {Review}: {A} {Comparative} {Examination} of {Courts} and {Policy} in {Democracies}},\n\tisbn = {978-1-78552-147-8},\n\tshorttitle = {Visions of {Judicial} {Review}},\n\tabstract = {Judicial review is increasingly prevalent in modern democratic government. Yet, with unelected judges reviewing - and potentially overturning - the work of the people's representatives, it also has long been, in Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes' words, 'the gravest and most delicate' task that courts undertake. This book establishes a framework to consider the value of judicial review in modern democracy, grouping answers to this question into one of three main arguments, or 'visions' for judicial review: legalist; rights-protecting; and majoritarian. The strength of these visions is then tested with an original dataset of constitutional court outcomes from four European courts - Poland, Slovenia, the Czech Republic, and Latvia - to determine whether any vision meets its promise. In fact, there is surprising support for the potentially majoritarian benefits of judicial review - a finding that challenges much of our existing theory regarding the value of the courts in modern democracy.},\n\tlanguage = {English},\n\tpublisher = {ECPR Press},\n\tauthor = {Bricker, Benjamin},\n\tmonth = dec,\n\tyear = {2015},\n\tfile = {Bricker_Chapter_1.pdf:files/53579/Bricker_Chapter_1.pdf:application/pdf}\n}\n\n","author_short":["Bricker, B."],"key":"bricker_visions_2015","id":"bricker_visions_2015","bibbaseid":"bricker-visionsofjudicialreviewacomparativeexaminationofcourtsandpolicyindemocracies-2015","role":"author","urls":{},"downloads":0},"search_terms":["visions","judicial","review","comparative","examination","courts","policy","democracies","bricker"],"keywords":[],"authorIDs":[],"dataSources":["Bn7xRaKMY43f7hFwh"]}