Abstract

Arguments against the legitimacy of judicial review are still widely discussed despite the spreading of this legal practice on a world-wide scale. This paper concentrates on one of the most sophisticated of these normative arguments, that is, the one proposed by Jeremy Waldron and based on the idea of disagreement. After having reconstructed Waldron's main points, the paper focuses on some limits which affect his argument. Three aspects are taken into account: the flawed distinction between input and output reasons, the problem of regress and the reductive conception of equality proposed by Waldron.