Critics argue that assigning to the courts the authority to resolve certain categories of contested questions of value will lead to judicial overreach and unjustified interference with the majority’s exercise of power. This argument is deeply misleading. The most salient instances of judicial failure have involved judicial restraint and deference to the other branches of government rather than the exercise of judicial power. The cases that constitute paradigm examples of judicial failure—Plessy, Korematsu, Bowers v. Hardwick—involved excessive judicial deference and inaction, not judicial overreach. While critics argue that intervention by the courts to protect rights may produce bad consequences, the consequences of failure to intervene are tangibly more significant than the consequences of intervention. While consequentialist objections to judicial review do not, I have argued, undermine or qualify the arguments for the value and importance of the institution of judicial review, recent instances of judicial overreach point to the need for greater accountability. Nominees must be required to provide full disclosure of their judicial philosophy and approach to judicial reasoning, and members of the Senate must give that information significant weight in their deliberations.