Judicial Review, Variously Situated

I just read Jeremy Waldron's article The Core of the Case Against Judicial Review, so there may be a few judicial-review-themed posts in the next few days. Here's the first one. Fundamentally I think there are three practical questions regarding judicial review. First, should a nation like the United States, which possesses a tradition of relatively successful judicial review, abolish or weaken that institution? Second, should a nation like the United Kingdom, successful and prosperous with a tradition of legislative supremacy and no constitutional review, create the institution of judicial review? Finally, should a nation with no strong tradition any which way which is creating a new government for itself decide to include the institution of judicial review in that government? These are three very different questions, and there is in principle no inconsistency about thinking that the U.S. should retain judicial review and that Britain should not institute it.