Critical Thinking Exercise: Evaluating Judicial Review in South Korea and the U.S.

Question 1:
Traditional theories of judicial review hold that neutral or principled grounds are the only legitimate bases for judicial decisions, rejecting political motives in judicial decision making. Do you believe this is true? Do you see principled versus political motives in important U.S. Supreme Court constitutional decisions that overturn laws passed by legislatures (such as restrictions on gun ownership or loosening of restrictions on marijuana use)?

• In your response, discuss whether you think judicial decisions can ever be fully neutral or whether political motives sometimes play a role, using U.S. Supreme Court examples.

Question 2:
In South Korea, high-profile cases are often brought to the Constitutional Court to break political deadlocks. Politicians may invite judicial intervention deliberately to avoid public criticism of their inability to act. Do you think this happens in the United States? provide specific examples.

• Reflect on the U.S. judicial system and consider whether the courts are sometimes used as a means of avoiding political responsibility. Provide at least two specific examples to support your argument.

Question 3:
Judicial review can be used to protect the rights of disadvantaged individuals or to serve the interests of political and economic elites. Can you provide examples of U.S. Supreme Court cases where the court attempted to balance government power and individual rights? (provide at least one example)