Abstract

This paper is devoted to analyze an acute critique to Waldron's objection to judicial review. The author of this critique, González Bertomeu, holds that Waldron's objection omits what can be called as «the methodological question». According to González Bertomeu, there is no methodological background shared both by defenders and critics of judicial review. Such fact would explain at least in part the profound disagreements regarding the justification of judicial review. I think that Gonzalez Bertomeu is right in making this point. But I argue that his point can be improved reconstructing the debate on the methodological question along the lines of the contraposition between universalism and particularism.