Public education, constitutional values and the Supreme Court of Canada: has our highest court offered a balanced approach to judicial decision‐making?

2004 ◽  
Vol 16 (2-3) ◽  
pp. 145-172
Author(s):  
Paul T. Clarke *
2013 ◽  
Vol 46 (2) ◽  
pp. 323-344 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vuk Radmilovic

Abstract. While comparative public law scholars report that we are witnessing a “global expansion of judicial power” (Tate and Vallinder, 1995), much of the comparative research also suggests that judicial power is subject to significant external constraints, including those associated with interests of governmental actors (such as Helmke, 2005; Vanberg, 2005). In Canada, however, the question of the extent to which governmental actors affect the Supreme Court of Canada's decision making in the wake of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms has not received systematic attention (but see Hennigar, 2010; Kelly, 2005). The paper analyzes the extent to which governmental mobilization through third-party intervention affects the Supreme Court's decision making. It relies on a dataset of all constitutional rights cases involving review of written laws decided by the Court in the post-charter period (1982–2007). It shows that third-party intervention is a powerful institutional mechanism providing governmental actors with an opportunity to systematically affect the exercise of judicial review.Résumé. Alors que les chercheurs en droit public comparé affirment que nous assistons à une «expansion globale du pouvoir judiciaire» (Tate et Vallinder, 1995), la recherché comparative suggère également que le pouvoir judiciaire est soumis à de fortes contraintes extérieures, y compris celles associées aux intérêts des acteurs gouvernementaux (Helmke, 2005; Vanberg, 2005). Au Canada, cependant, la question de l'impact des acteurs gouvernementaux sur le processus de décision de la Cour Suprême, dans la foulée de l'adoption de la Charte, a reçu peu d'attention (à l'exception des travaux d'Hennigar 2010; Kelly, 2005). Cet article explore dans quelle mesure la mobilisation gouvernementale par l'entremise de l'intervention des tiers influence le processus de décision de la Cour Suprême. Il s'appuie sur une base de données des décisions liées aux droits constitutionnels dans la période de l'après-Charte (1982–1997) qui ont nécessité un examen de législations gouvernementales. Il démontre que l'intervention de tiers est un puissant mécanisme institutionnel permettant aux acteurs gouvernementaux de systématiquement influencer l'exercice du contrôle judiciaire.


Author(s):  
Miguel Á. Benedetti ◽  
M. Jimena Sáenz

Resumen: En las últimas décadas, las audiencias públicas realizadas en foros judiciales han sido señaladas como una de las innovaciones más importantes en las prácticas de los tribunales de altas instancias latinoamericanos. Estas audiencias prometen una renovación en los modos de pensar las tensas relaciones entre el poder judicial –especialmente su facultad de revisión de constitucionalidad– y la democracia a partir de la apertura del espacio judicial al diálogo y la participación de la ciudadanía, de las modalidades de intervención judicial para la protección de derechos, y de los aspectos simbólicos y políticos de herramientas que usualmente se reconocen como meramente procesales. A la luz de esos objetivos de renovación dialógica, pragmática y simbólica de las prácticas judiciales que abrieron las audiencias, este trabajo testea su grado de concreción a través de un estudio de los efectos de las audiencias públicas realizadas por la Corte Suprema de Justicia argentina en sus decisiones desde finales de 2004 hasta el 2017 inclusive.Palabras clave: Corte Suprema, audiencias públicas, participación ciudadana, deliberación, decisión judicialAbstract: The implementation of public hearings in judicial fora in the last decades has been considered from different perspectives one of the most important innovations in the practices of Latin American Courts. They promise a renovation in the ways of accommodating the tension between the role of Courts (especially their function of judicial review) and democracy; in the models of judicial decision making, and they point to the symbolic dimension of procedural rules and practices. This paper presents a study that tests the accomplishment of these promises tracing the impact of public hearings in the decisions of the Supreme Court of Argentina in the period between 2004 and 2017.Keywords: Supreme Court, public hearings, public participation, deliberation, judicial decision making.  


2008 ◽  
Vol 33 (03) ◽  
pp. 779-803 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul Frymer

This essay reviews the recent volume edited by Ronald Kahn and Ken I. Kersch, The Supreme Court and American Political Development(2006), as well as the broader literature by law scholars interested in American Political Development (APD). The Law and APD literature has advanced our knowledge about courts by placing attention on the importance of executive and legislative actors, and by providing political context to our understanding of judicial decision making. But this knowledge would be more powerful if it would embrace the broader APD field's orientation toward the importance of state and institutional autonomy for understanding politics and political change. Law and APD scholars could go further in examining the ways in which courts and judges act institutionally, and how the legal branch as an institution impacts American politics and state-building. In doing so, Law and APD scholars would contribute not only to our understanding of judicial decision making but also to our understanding of the place and importance of courts in American politics.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document