# UK Supreme Court and lack of judicial review

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uk-supreme-court-and-lack-of-judicial-review/826872>\
**Category:** Factual Questions\
**Created:** [December 29, 2018, 4:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uk-supreme-court-and-lack-of-judicial-review/826872 "2018-12-29T16:59:21Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Page:** 3

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\
**Post date:** [January 3, 2019, 3:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uk-supreme-court-and-lack-of-judicial-review/826872/41 "2019-01-03T15:36:35Z")

</div>

> [@UltraVires](#):
>
> If Congress denies the power of judicial review, the executive breaks the tie.
> 
> \<snip\>
> 
> I think judicial review has gone too far. At the same time, I think you would be as terrified as I would about absolute majority rule with no checks in the United States.

As POTUS, which side are you more likely to support - the one that ensures you have funding (and has the power to remove you from office), or the one that has no power at all except what you give it?

You are correct that I would be terrified about the prospect you describe _in the United States_.

> [@md2000](#):
>
> And if there’s a dispute over what the constitution and laws mean - it’s the court’s job to sort it out, decide whether a law is enforceable, whether it overrides previous or is overridden, when two are in conflict. Judicial review is just saying “this law/constitutional rule/ etc. overrides this one.” This is fundamentally what a court is and does.

That’s circular logic. There is nothing in the Constitution that permits SCOTUS to strike down congressional acts. It may very well be that the framers intended for Congress to be the arbiter of constitutionality of legislative acts. That is not to say that I oppose judicial review; in the U.S. context, I’m very much in favor. But the idea that it’s an absolute requirement is untrue.

> [@ElvisL1ves](#):
>
> It’s difficult on purpose, to keep it from being done lightly, but it has been done 27 times, including measures that would certainly be considered radical and even ridiculous by the original writers. It’s only recently that the idea that it just can’t be done anymore and there’s no point trying has been spread by the conservative faction in the US.

It’s only been done 10 times in the past 100 years and only once in the last _fifty_ years (unless you count the 27th, which was proposed 200 years ago).

[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uk-supreme-court-and-lack-of-judicial-review/826872.md?page=2)