The question of the constitutionality of having Supreme Court justices, appointed and not elected by the people, decide on the constitutionality of laws and legislation is debatable. When the Marshall Court issued its decision in Marbury v. Madison claiming the right to judicial review, everything changed, for better or worse. Dworkin's writings attempt to reiterate what a democracy is and its purpose in serving the people. His statements are almost contradictory as he states that it is necessary to avoid the moral reading of the Constitution, since it gives too much power to judges. However, he also claims that originalist readings date the Constitution and make it less relevant. All this amounts to calling for an institution that protects people's rights and limits the majoritarian aspects of democracy, thus, in essence, creating a functioning constitutional democracy. I believe the answer Dworkin is looking for is the judicial branch. Waldron feels the same way, noting the differences in Dworkin's essay as well. Dworkin states that “the legislature is not the safest means of protecting the rights of unpopular political groups,” and this is where I can understand a point he is trying to make, because the legislature is not the safest means of protecting the minorities.