The debate over the legitimacy of the role of judicial review in United States constitutional democracy has been ongoing since the creation of the Constitution. The power of judicial review can be considered undemocratic because it is not directly stated in the Constitution, because of the authority of unelected judges, and because it sometimes resists the majority. Despite these assertions, I believe that judicial review is a constitutional doctrine, born out of the historical process of persuasive reasoning in sentencing, institutional prestige, cooperation of the political branches, and public opinion at large. It is important to understand the classic Yates v. Hamilton to understand the context of judicial review in American democracy. Robert Yates was an Anti-Federalist and New York Supreme Court justice who argued that judicial review was inconsistent with the spirit of democratic government. He refused to give the judiciary the final say on constitutional interpretation. In his article, Brutus n. 11, argued that the power of the judiciary would be superior to the legislature if the Supreme Court acted as the final arbiter of the meaning of the constitution, so “this power in the judiciary will enable them to shape the government into whatever form they like. —How this may be effected we shall hereafter examine” (Yates). Yates, above all, believed that the Constitution was the mediator between the public and elected officials. On the other hand, federalist Alexander Hamilton defended the legitimacy of judicial review as the “least dangerous branch” of government. He explained the legitimate status of courts through the system of checks and balances. Ham… middle of paper… Judicial appointment eliminates the need for political pressure and allows judges to act as impartial mediators in political disputes. To the contrary, judicial elections would harm the function of state courts to enforce the law, would likely be more corrupt than judicial appointment by polluting judicial integrity, and would jeopardize procedural impartiality. Therefore, judicial appointment is a better alternative where its advantages outweigh its shortcomings. Judicial review promotes democracy when the political system poses a threat to democratic reform. It can also act as a watchdog for Congress and the President to make sure they don't overstep their boundaries. It is a flawed constitutional institution. Yet, judicial review is not inherently undemocratic as it is a necessary process for the functioning of the US system of government and democratic society...