Judicial Power and Canadian Democracy
The role the courts should play in Canada's political system is a long-simmering issue. Ever since the Charter of Rights and Freedoms came into effect in 1982, Canada's courts have been empowered to strike down any legislation held to contravene Canadians' basic rights. While any number of court rulings since that time have caused a stir in legal and political circles, in the past several years judicial decisions have attracted the attention of a broader public. Landmark rulings on a range of controversial issues, from aboriginal claims to gay rights, have captured the headlines and catalysed public debate over the merits of judicial power. These controversies raise challenging questions about the role of a powerful judiciary in a democracy. In Judicial Power and Canadian Democracy, a series of essays commissioned by the Institute for Research on Public Policy, some of Canada's foremost commentators – academics, politicians, and Supreme Court judges themselves – take up the debate. Some tangle over the pivotal question of whether judges should have the decisive say on issues involving entrenched rights that have profound implication for the policy preferences of elected bodies. Others examine related issues, including Supreme Court appointment procedures, interest group litigation, the historical roots of the notwithstanding clause, and the state of public opinion on Canada's courts. Those interested in the power of the judicial branch will find much in this collection to stimulate fresh thinking on issues that are likely to remain on the public agenda for years to come.
Contributors include Joseph F. Fletcher (Toronto), Janet Hiebert (Queen's), Gregory Hein (Toronto), Peter W. Hogg (York), Paul Howe, Rainer Knopff (Calgary), Sébastien Lebel-Grenier (Sherbrooke), Howard Leeson (Regina), Kate Malleson (London School of Economics), E. Preston Manning (Reform Party of Canada), Hon. Beverley McLachlin (Supreme Court of Canada), F.L. Morton (Calgary), Pierre Patenaude (Sherbrooke), Peter Russell, Allison A. Thornton (Blake, Cassels and Graydon), Frederick Vaughan (emeritus, Guelph), Lorraine Eisenstat Weinrib (Toronto), Hon. Bertha Wilson (emeritus, Supreme Court of Canada), and Jacob Ziegel (Toronto).
Mnenja - Napišite recenzijo
Na običajnih mestih nismo našli nobenih recenzij.
Patterns and Trends
Incorporating the European Convention on Human Rights
ARE JUDGES TOO POWERFUL? DEBATE AND DIALOGUE
Courts Legislatures and Executives in the PostCharter Era
We Didnt Volunteer
The Activist Constitution
Courts Dont Make Good Compromises
The Charter and Legitimization of Judicial Activism
Dialogue or Monologue?
Reforms Judicial Agenda
A B for Prof Russell
JUDICIAL AUTHORITY ISSUES AND CONTROVERSIES
Merit Selection and Democratization of Appointments to the Supreme Court of Canada
Judges Parliament and the Making of Social Policy
Interest Group Litigation and Canadian Democracy
Public Opinion and Canadas Courts
The Provincial Court Judges Case and Extended Judicial Control
The Charter Dialogue between Courts and Legislatures
A Paper Tiger?
Druge izdaje - Prikaži vse
accept action activism activists adopted agree Alberta amending appear appointments argument asked assessment authority aware Bill of Rights British Canada Canadian challenge Charter of Rights civil claims clause committee common concerns considered constitutional Convention Court of Canada criminal critics debate decision democratic discussion effect elected entrenched equality established evidence example expression fact favour federal Figure fundamental give groups guarantees Human Rights important institutions interests interpretation issues judges judicial judiciary Justice legislation legislatures less levels liberal limits litigation Lord majority matter means ment Minister nominating notwithstanding objective opinion Parliament parliamentary party percent person political position principles procedure proposed protection provinces provisions Quebec question reasonable records reference Reform representatives respect response restrictions Rights and Freedoms role ruling sexual social society suggested Supreme Court tion trial values