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.

"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. '...provides new theoretical and empirical insight into comparative courts and judging, particularly in Central and Eastern European democracies." -- Christy L. Boyd, University of Georgia