Consensus and Unanimity at the Supreme Court of Canada

نویسنده

  • Emmett Macfarlane
چکیده

Empirical studies of judicial decision-making tend to focus on explaining why individual judges often come to different conclusions. The dominant understanding of decision-making on the U.S. Supreme Court is the ideologically based policy preferences of the justices, with related studies showing that American justices often make strategic choices to ensure the Court’s decisions reflect their preferred outcome. Recent studies investigating whether similar “attitudinal” behaviour occurs at the Supreme Court of Canada generally confirm the existence of ideological voting, but in a weaker form than in the American Court. These results

برای دانلود رایگان متن کامل این مقاله و بیش از 32 میلیون مقاله دیگر ابتدا ثبت نام کنید

ثبت نام

اگر عضو سایت هستید لطفا وارد حساب کاربری خود شوید

منابع مشابه

Cognitive Mapping of the Human Capital of the Auditors of Supreme Audit Court

The present study was conducted with the aim of analyzing the components of human capital and discovering the relationships between them for the auditors of the Supreme Audit Court. Thus, after identifying the dimensions of human capital at the individual level, the components of human capital for the auditors of the Supreme Audit Court were extracted using content analysis of semi-structured i...

متن کامل

Implications and reflections on the 2010 Supreme Court ruling on Canada’s AHR Act

In December, 2010, Canada's 6 year old Assisted Human Reproduction Act was successfully challenged in the Supreme Court of Canada. There may be important implications for public health and the evolution of reproductive technologies in this country.

متن کامل

Criminal Law & HIV Non-Disclosure in Canada

The legal obligation to disclose was established in the 1990s, but the law became harsher in 2012 when the Supreme Court of Canada decided that people living with HIV must disclose their status before having sex that poses a “realistic possibility of HIV transmission” in R. v. Mabior and R. v. D.C.1 The Supreme Court characterized even very small risks of HIV transmission as “a realistic possib...

متن کامل

HIV non-disclosure and the criminal law: An analysis of two recent decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada

On October 5, 2012, the Supreme Court of Canada released its decisions in the cases of Mabior and D.C. The Court decided that people living with HIV have a legal duty, under the criminal law, to disclose their HIV-positive status to sexual partners before having sex that poses a “realistic possibility” of HIV transmission. Not disclosing in such circumstances means a person could be convicted o...

متن کامل

Canada's Roe: the Canadian abortion decision and its implications for American constitutional law and theory.

Like the United Kingdom, Canada traditionally has been committed to the doctrine of parliamentary supremacy, which leaves little room for judicial protection of individual rights. In 1982, however, the Canadian Constitution, originally a product of the United Kingdom, was "patriated" to Canada. It was also amended to include a judicially-enforceable Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This amendmen...

متن کامل

ذخیره در منابع من


  با ذخیره ی این منبع در منابع من، دسترسی به آن را برای استفاده های بعدی آسان تر کنید

عنوان ژورنال:

دوره   شماره 

صفحات  -

تاریخ انتشار 2010