Final answer:
Some argue that judicial review is a violation of separation of powers because it allows the judiciary to potentially overstep its role and make decisions on the constitutionality of laws passed by Congress and actions taken by the executive branch.
Critics believe this violates the democratic process and allows judges to impose their personal opinions. Additionally, opponents argue that judicial review enables judicial activism, as judges can create new laws from the bench.
Step-by-step explanation:
Some argue that judicial review is a violation of separation of powers because it allows the judiciary to potentially overstep its role and make decisions on the constitutionality of laws passed by Congress and actions taken by the executive branch.
This can be seen as an intrusion into the powers reserved for the legislative and executive branches, which is a violation of the principle of separation of powers.
For example, critics of judicial review argue that it goes against the democratic process because judges are unelected and serve for life, yet they have the power to decide when and how to apply and increase government powers.
This is seen as undemocratic and can be seen as judges imposing their personal opinions upon the public.
Furthermore, opponents of judicial review argue that it enables judicial activism, where judges go beyond interpreting the law and instead create new laws from the bench.
This is often seen as a violation of the principle that the power to make laws lies with the legislative branch and not the judiciary.