Book reviews

The debate over the legitimacy and appropriate scope of judicial review has not cooled. John Hart Ely's influential Democracy and Distrust' has apparently become an opening shot in another battle between proponents of activism and restraint, rather than the final volley the author might have desired.' Theories outlining the proper measure of judicial authority abound, as do critiques of such theories. Nonetheless, two current books, Philip Bobbitt's Constitutional Fate3 and Michael Perry's The Constitution, the Courts, and Human Rights4 are welcome additions to the increasingly crowded literature of judicial review. Both books are powerful studies that not only examine the shortcomings of judicial review in a democratic society, but refreshingly explore the potential values of constitutional decisionmaking as well. The tensions that arise between judicial review and democratic theory are easily described. When the federal judiciary negates an action of a legislature or member of the executive branch, electorally accountable institutions are overridden by electorally unaccountable judges. If one accepts the premise that important governmental decisions in a representa-