Part II Institutions and Constitutional Change, C The Courts, Ch.10 The Supreme Court of Canada and Appointment of Judges in Canada

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dodek Adam ◽  
Way Rosemary Cairns
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Constitutional Change ◽  
Supreme Court Of Canada ◽  
Institutional Diversity ◽  
Federal Judiciary ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Democratic Ideals ◽  
Federal Judges ◽  
Transparency And Accountability

This chapter explains the constitutional status of the Supreme Court of Canada with attention to the Court’s composition, jurisdiction, and procedure. The chapter discusses the Supreme Court’s 2014 decision in Reference re Supreme Court Act, ss 5 and 6 and considers whether and how that decision limits Parliament’s authority to make changes to the Court. Both the process for appointing Supreme Court of Canada justices and the process for appointing other federal judges to the country’s superior courts are explained. The authors argue that both appointment processes are inconsistent with democratic ideals of transparency and accountability. They examine the emerging scholarly and professional consensus on the importance of institutional diversity on the bench, and conclude that the continuing lack of diversity in the federal judiciary raises legitimate political and constitutional concerns.

Rethinking the State Secrets Privilege

2010 ◽  
pp. 656-672
Author(s):  
Louis Fisher
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
The State ◽  
Playing Field ◽  
Federal Judiciary ◽  
Past Half Century ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Government ◽  
Federal Judges ◽  
State Secrets ◽  
Past Half

This article discusses the concept of state secrets privilege which is designed to prevent private litigants from gaining access to agency documents sought in cases involving National Security Agency (NSA) surveillance, extraordinary rendition, and other intelligence programs. Before the Reynolds case, the Supreme Court recognized the state secrets privilege. Over the past half century, federal judges gave “deference” to the executive claims on sensitivity and confidentiality of agency records without ever looking at the disputed document. However in 1953, the Supreme Court was misled by the government. Since then, there has been an interest in having Congress enact legislation to assure greater independence for the federal judiciary and provide a more even playing field for private litigants.

scholarly journals Who May Remove or Discipline Federal Judges? A Constitutional Analysis

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter M. Shane
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Federal Government ◽  
Self Regulation ◽  
Constitutional Interpretation ◽  
Criminal Sanctions ◽  
Federal Judiciary ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Independent Counsel ◽  
Federal Judges ◽  
Constitutional Analysis

This article examines two issues regarding the Constitution’s Impeachment Clause and the federal judiciary: first, is impeachment the sole permissible mechanism for judicial removal? Second, who, if anyone is authorized to discipline federal judges through sanctions short of removal? This article argues that a form of “strict originalism,” that is, the attempt to discern the Constitution’s resolution of particular issues according to the founders’ expectations regarding those very issues—makes sense with respect to political mechanisms for judicial discipline and removal. Political mechanisms are those which can by fully initiated and implemented by the elected branches of the federal government without the involvement of the judiciary. However, employing “neoclassical” constitutional interpretation—examining general values revealed by the founders’ debates about the Constitution as a whole rather than highly specific original understandings of particular questions—demonstrates that (1) federal judges may also be disciplined through judicially enforceable civil and criminal sanctions imposed through executive or independent counsel prosecution, and (2) the federal judiciary, subject to congressional regulation, may exercise powers of self-regulation for judges not sitting on the Supreme Court.

Black Federal Judges and Civil Rights in the Age of Obama

2021 ◽  
pp. 201-221
Author(s):  
Shenita Brazelton ◽  
Dianne M. Pinderhughes
Keyword(s):  
African American ◽  
Civil Rights ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Voting Rights ◽  
Federal Courts ◽  
President Obama ◽  
Federal Judiciary ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Federal Judges ◽  
The Impact

We examine the demographics of the federal judiciary and the impact President Obama had on diversifying the federal bench. We discuss the record-breaking number of women and minorities Obama appointed to federal courts at all levels. Considering the historic and current struggles of African Americans in attaining civil rights, we focus our discussion on the appointment of Black federal judges. We highlight the historic firsts for African American appointees and the continuing need for Black federal judges, particularly in the South. We also discuss the inclusionary dilemma in the context of President Obama’s selections for staffing the federal judiciary. We discuss Obama’s decision not to appoint a third African American justice to the Supreme Court, but we examine his record-breaking number of African American appointments to the lower federal courts. Despite these historic appointments, President Obama’s appointment power was not unfettered. In the end, we assess the impact of Obama’s appointees in view of voting rights litigation. Voting rights are particularly pertinent for racial minorities who have been historically denied these rights but have made gains in electing minorities to public office. In the conclusion, we discuss the racial implications of the Trump administration’s attempts to reverse Obama’s judicial legacy.

scholarly journals 1968: One Year In the Life of the Mexican Federal Judiciary

2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
pp. 3
Author(s):  
Héctor Fix-Fierro
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Public Perception ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Federal Judiciary ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
And Performance ◽  
One Year ◽  
Federal Judges

1968 is considered a mythical year in many parts of the world. In Mexico, it has acquired an almost sacred status. The student movement is com¬monly viewed as the beginning of the prolonged process of democratic transition that has unfolded in the last decades. Although there is very abundant literature about the events of that year, the role that the Mexican Federal Judiciary (MFJ) played in them has practically not been examined. The article analyzes the si¬tuation and performance of the Supreme Court of Justice and the MFJ during that single year. For this purpose, the essay examines the following aspects: the composition, organization and resources of the federal courts; judicial statistics; judicial precedents; judicial ideology and public perception on the justice system; and finally, the intervention of federal judges in the judicial proceedings instituted against the students and other leftist political dissidents. The article concludes that the MFJ was subject to many constraints and limitations that, for good measure, hampered its role in the defense of constitutional order. Twenty years later the reforms leading to the transformation of the Supreme Court of Justice into a constitutional court were started, favoring a more active intervention of judges and courts in the protection and defense of fundamental rights.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document