Talk:Judicial review

Criticism
I added a mention of an interested Facebook page where we can discuss the SCOTUS, how the decide cases, etc. It's pretty interesting. A Facebook friend of mine started it and it has a lot of interesting interviews with the Justices and such. iMatti (talk) 07:21, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Defintion
This definition is circular. It says "Judicial review is the doctrine under which legislative and executive actions are subject to review by the judiciary." That is like saying "judicial review" is review by the judicial branch. A better definition is "Judicial review is the doctrine that empowers courts to invalidate laws they find to contradict other laws, particularly the Constitution." Ibnsina786 (talk) 16:31, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Not a new concept
Judicial review was not established by Marbury v Madison. It is simply a modern version of the old writ of mandamus. Royalcourtier (talk) 17:40, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Table missing legend. What is HC-AM?
I was trying to understand the table presented in section Judicial review by country. There is no legend. Abbreviations like CC-EM, HC-AM and HC-EM are not explained.

Jeffrey Walton (talk) 14:39, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Dubious table
The table, which doesn't cite a reliable source, says that New Zealand follows the American model of judicial review, but the articles on the Constitution of New Zealand and Parliamentary sovereignty say that judicial review was rejected in New Zealand and that the Parliament of New Zealand is sovereign. I'm adding a dubious tag instead of removing the table wholesale. Jade Ten (talk) 00:26, 14 June 2022 (UTC)


 * I think that table needs to be deleted entirely. It cites only one source, which appears to be a self-published source, so not WP:RELIABLE.  The headings are nowhere defined, and it isn't referenced in the rest of the article. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 15:45, 28 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Six months have gone by since Jade Ten queried the table, and three months since Polyphemus Goode tagged it as incomprehensible, and three months since my post suggesting it be deleted; no feedback, so I've deleted it.  In summary:  concepts and abbreviations used in the table are not defined, so it's guesswork trying to make sense of it; cite just takes you to a single page, with no details as to who the author is or why this is a reliable source;  looks like usergenerated content:  WP:USERGENERATED. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 14:17, 28 December 2023 (UTC)