What are the arguments against the implementation of judicial review?

What will be an ideal response?

Arguments against the principle of judicial review state that giving judges independent authority potentially sacrifices effective government on the altar of limited government. During a serious national crisis, for example, perhaps an elected government should be allowed to try something—anything—without worrying whether a Supreme Court will overturn its proposals. Others object that giving unelected and unaccountable judges the power to invalidate legislation actually violates the definition of democracy as a political system in which the rulers are accountable to the ruled. Opponents of judicial review argue that democracy requires that elected officials interpret the constitution, not unelected judges. They also suggest that it is impractical to assume that unelected judges will be politically impartial. After all, elected politicians from one political party or another typically appoint those judges in the first place—and politicians tend to nominate judges who share their political interests. Because voters neither hire nor fire judges, judicial review insulates a set of political actors from both voters and elected officials.