Una respuesta a la ‘dificultad contramayoritaria’ a partir de las ‘virtudes pasivas’ de los jueces
In the first part of this paper describes some general assumptions to understand the problem of the countermajoritarian difficulty of Alexander Bickel. Subsequently, it is come to explain the response to the countermajoritarian difficulty where judges are an auxiliary democracy through judicial revi...
- Autores:
-
Agudelo Agudelo, Carlos Alberto .
- Tipo de recurso:
- Article of investigation
- Fecha de publicación:
- 2014
- Institución:
- Universidad ICESI
- Repositorio:
- Repositorio ICESI
- Idioma:
- spa
- OAI Identifier:
- oai:repository.icesi.edu.co:10906/77531
- Acceso en línea:
- http://www.icesi.edu.co/revistas/index.php/precedente/article/view/1977
https://hdl.handle.net/10906/77531
http://biblioteca2.icesi.edu.co/cgi-olib/?infile=details.glu&loid=273904
https://doi.org/10.18046/prec.v5.1977
- Palabra clave:
- Jueces
Producción intelectual registrada - Universidad Icesi
Revisión judicial
Democracia
Countermajoritarian difficulty
Democracy
Judicial review
- Rights
- openAccess
- License
- http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
| Summary: | In the first part of this paper describes some general assumptions to understand the problem of the countermajoritarian difficulty of Alexander Bickel. Subsequently, it is come to explain the response to the countermajoritarian difficulty where judges are an auxiliary democracy through judicial review. Next, it will be shown the image of prestige of the courts and the educational function. This argument says that judges are not a countermajoritarian power, by contrast, are supporting democracy. Finally, it will be argued that DCM Bickel involves the creation of an inter-institutional dialogue, because the judges based on mature cases are responding to the demands of society. |
|---|