Bypassing the Judge: A Manifestation of the Legitimacy Crisis of Judicial Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Judicial review is undergoing an unprecedented crisis in several regions of the world. It is criticized for its politicization related to its purpose, effects, and how judges are appointed, as well as the power of obstruction it holds over the law. Questions about the compatibility of judicial review with democracy are not new, but they have rarely been as sensitive. The problem lies not in these legitimate questions, but from their political instrumentalization and their transformation into an electoral promise: that of restoring sovereignty to the people and protecting its identity by removing any obstacles that could hinder the adoption of measures to which citizens consented at the time of the election or that enjoy strong support among the population. It is in this type of discourse, which plays on the opposition between the people and the elites, that the justifications for bypassing the constitutional judge are found, as the judge is the one who blocks public decision-making and thus hinders the exercise of sovereignty. The purpose of this Article is to analyze, through concrete examples (Canada, the United States, Hungary, Israel, Poland), how this distrust towards the judiciary oper-ates in both illiberal and liberal democracies and to construct a critical discourse to identify possible solutions.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.018 | 0.064 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.021 | 0.053 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".