Judicial Power and Canadian DemocracyPaul Howe, Peter H. Russell McGill-Queen's Press - MQUP, 2001 - 327 strani 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). |
Vsebina
Patterns and Trends | 3 |
Incorporating the European Convention on Human Rights | 27 |
ARE JUDGES TOO POWERFUL? DEBATE AND DIALOGUE | 61 |
Courts Legislatures and Executives in the PostCharter Era | 63 |
We Didnt Volunteer | 73 |
The Activist Constitution | 80 |
Courts Dont Make Good Compromises | 87 |
The Charter and Legitimization of Judicial Activism | 94 |
Dialogue or Monologue? | 111 |
Reforms Judicial Agenda | 118 |
A B for Prof Russell | 123 |
JUDICIAL AUTHORITY ISSUES AND CONTROVERSIES | 129 |
Merit Selection and Democratization of Appointments to the Supreme Court of Canada | 131 |
Judges Parliament and the Making of Social Policy | 165 |
Interest Group Litigation and Canadian Democracy | 214 |
Public Opinion and Canadas Courts | 255 |
The Provincial Court Judges Case and Extended Judicial Control | 99 |
The Charter Dialogue between Courts and Legislatures | 106 |
A Paper Tiger? | 297 |
Druge izdaje - Prikaži vse
Pogosti izrazi in povedi
Aboriginal accused agree Alberta amending argument assessment Beverley McLachlin Bill of Rights British Canadian Charter challenge Charter Canadians Charter of Rights Chief Justice civil libertarians claims common law concerns conflict Constitution Act controversial Convention Court decisions Court judges Court of Canada Court ruled criminal critics debate defence democracy democratic dialogue elected entrenched equality favour federal government Globe and Mail groups guarantees Human Rights Act important institutions interests interpretation issues judicial activism judicial appointments judicial review judiciary left activists legislation legislatures liberal litigation Lord Lord Chancellor's Department majority ment nominating committee notwithstanding clause opinion override Parliament parliamentary parliamentary sovereignty party percent political Prime Minister protection provinces provisions public policy Quebec Quebec secession reference question reasonable Reform response restrictions Rights and Freedoms role Russell scrutiny Seaboyer secession section 33 sexual assault trials social Supreme Court tion tobacco Toronto Trudeau Vriend women