APA 6th Edition Bačić, P. (2009). Zakonodavna supremacija i sudski aktivizam u SAD-u. Politička misao, 46 (3), 174-204. Retrieved from https://hrcak.srce.hr/50949
MLA 8th Edition Bačić, Petar. "Zakonodavna supremacija i sudski aktivizam u SAD-u." Politička misao, vol. 46, no. 3, 2009, pp. 174-204. https://hrcak.srce.hr/50949. Accessed 22 Sep. 2021.
Chicago 17th Edition Bačić, Petar. "Zakonodavna supremacija i sudski aktivizam u SAD-u." Politička misao 46, no. 3 (2009): 174-204. https://hrcak.srce.hr/50949
Harvard Bačić, P. (2009). 'Zakonodavna supremacija i sudski aktivizam u SAD-u', Politička misao, 46(3), pp. 174-204. Available at: https://hrcak.srce.hr/50949 (Accessed 22 September 2021)
Vancouver Bačić P. Zakonodavna supremacija i sudski aktivizam u SAD-u. Politička misao [Internet]. 2009 [cited 2021 September 22];46(3):174-204. Available from: https://hrcak.srce.hr/50949
IEEE P. Bačić, "Zakonodavna supremacija i sudski aktivizam u SAD-u", Politička misao, vol.46, no. 3, pp. 174-204, 2009. [Online]. Available: https://hrcak.srce.hr/50949. [Accessed: 22 September 2021]
Abstracts The successive stages of development of constitutional democracy in the
USA, in particular the experience of “judicial supervision paradox”, show
us that the U.S. Supreme Court performed at least two different functions:
(1) norm enforcement, and (2) policy-making through re-examination and interpretation
of the Constitution and the laws in cases brought before the Court.
Dissent among American legal experts related to this and other matters prove
that debates on judicial activism are not a thing of the past. Still, both advocates
and critics of judicial activism share the view that judges have been an
important part of the American constitutional process since its inception. The
Marbury v. Madison case (1803) affirmed the institution of judicial supervision
and denoted a gradual shift of judicial power into the field of public
law. Thus further expansion and transformation of judicial power was made
possible. In this article, the author establishes a connection between judicial
activism and judicial supervision, and adheres to the standpoint that the “judicialising
aspect of modern liberalism” deserves as much attention as any other
aspect of democratisation.