%{search_type} search results

• Judicial independence and accountability : core values in liberal democracies / Shimon Shetreet
• Appointment, discipline and removal of judges in Australia / H.P. Lee
• Appointment, discipline and removal of judges in Canada / Martin L. Friedland
• Appointment, discipline and removal of judges in New Zealand / Philip A. Joseph
• Appointment, discipline and removal of judges in South Africa / Hugh Corder
• Appointment, discipline and removal of judges : fundamental reforms in the United Kingdom / Kate Malleson
• Judicial selection, removal and discipline in the United States / Mark Tushnet
• Judges' freedom of speech : Australia / John M. Williams
• Judges and free speech in Canada / Kent Roach
• Judges and free speech in New Zealand / Grant Hammond
• The judiciary and freedom of speech in South Africa / Iain Currie
• Judges and free speech in the United Kingdom / Keith D. Ewing
• The criticism and speech of judges in the United States / Charles Gardner Geyh
• Judges, bias and recusal in Australia / Colin Campbell
• Judges, bias and recusal in Canada / Lorne Sossin
• Judicial recusal in New Zealand / Gerard McCoy
• Judges, bias and recusal in South Africa / Kate O'Regan, Edwin Cameron
• Judges, bias and recusal in the United Kingdom / Christopher Forsyth
• Bias, the appearance of bias, and judicial disqualification in the United States / W. William Hodes
• Judges and non-judicial functions in Australia / Patrick Emerton, H.P. Lee
• The impact of extra-judicial service on the Canadian judiciary : the need for reform / Patrick Monahan, Byron Shaw
• Judges and the non-judicial function in New Zealand / Geoffrey Palmer
• Judges and non-judicial functions in South Africa / Cora Hoexter
• Judges and non-judicial functions in the United Kingdom / Abimbola A. Olowofoyeku
• Judges and non-judicial functions in the United States / Jeffrey M. Shaman
• The judiciary : a comparative conspectus / H.P. Lee.

An independent and impartial judiciary is fundamental to the existence and operation of a liberal democracy. Focussing on Australia, Canada, New Zealand, South Africa, the United Kingdom and the United States, this comparative 2011 study explores four major issues affecting the judicial institution. These issues relate to the appointment and discipline of judges; judges and freedom of speech; the performance of non-judicial functions by judges; and judicial bias and recusal, and each is set within the context of the importance of maintaining public confidence in the judiciary. The essays highlight important episodes or controversies affecting members of the judiciary to illustrate relevant principles.
(source: Nielsen Book Data)

• Ch.
• 1. The law
• ch.
• 2. The state authorities
• ch.
• 3. The judicial authority
• ch.
• 4. The High Court of Justice
• ch.
• 5. Constitutional basic principles
• ch.
• 6. Judicial review
• ch.
• 7. Human rights.

• Introduction / Kate Malleson
• Part one. Appointing judges in established democracies
• The Scottish Judicial Appointments Board : new wine in old bottles? / Alan Patterson
• The new Judicial Appointments Commission in England and Wales : new wine in new bottles? / Kate Malleson
• Judicial appointments in post-Charter Canada : a system in transition / F.L. Morton
• Legal controversies over federal judicial selection in the United States : breaking the cycle of obstruction and retribution over judicial appointments / Michael C. Tolley-- Judicial appointments in New Zealand : if it were done when 'tis done, then 'twere well it were done openly and directly / James Allan
• 'The judicial whisper goes around': appointment of judicial officers in Australia / Elizabeth Handsley
• Merit selection and diversity in the Dutch judiciary / Leny E. De Groot-Van Leeuwen
• Judicial selections in Italy : a civil service model with partisan results / Mary L. Volcansek
• The selection of judges in France : searching for a new legitimacy / Doris Marie Provine and Antoine Garapon
• The selection process of Constitutional Court judges in Germany / Christine Landfried
• Part two. Appointing the judges of international courts
• Judicial selection for internationlal courts : towards common principles and practices / Ruth Mackenzie and Phillipe Sands
• Part three. Appointing judges in new democracies and transitional states
• Judicial appointments and promotions in Israel : Constitution, law and politics / Eli M. Salzberger
• The politics of judicial selection in Egypt / Mahmoud M. Hamad
• Judicial selection in post-apartheid South Africa / Francois Du Bois
• A judiciary in transition : reflections on the selection of judges in Namibia / Sufian Hemed Burkurura
• Creating a compliant judiciary in Zimbabwe, 2000-2003 / Derek Matyszak
• The politics of judicial selection and appointments in Japan and ten South and Southeast Asian countries / David M. O'Brien
• Judicial selection in Russia : towards accountability and centralization / Alexei Trochev
• Improving the quality of the judiciary in China : recent reforms to the procedures for appointing, promoting, and discharging judges / Colin Hawes
• Conclusion / Peter H. Russell.

The global expansion in judicial power has led to a growing interest in the way judges are chosen. Reform of the judicial selection process is on the political agenda in many countries but the nature of that process differs according to the type of process used - whether a career judiciary, an elected judiciary (direct and indirect), appointment by the executive, or a hybrid system. The main aim of this volume is to analyse common issues arising from increasing judicial power in the context of different political and legal systems, including those in North America, Africa, Europe, Australia, and Asia. The contributors seek to assess the strengths and weaknesses of structural and procedural reforms being proposed or implemented. Particularly important issues include the growing pressure to rethink the balance between judicial independence and accountability and the growing recognition of the importance of selecting judiciaries with a greater diversity in composition. Edited by Kate Malleson and Peter H. Russell, the volume marks the first time an analysis of judicial selection in such a wide range of different systems has been undertaken. It will interest anyone concerned with the global shift of political power toward the judiciary. Contributors: Jim Allen Sufian Hemed Bukurura Leny De Groot Francois du Bois Antoine Garapon Mahmoud Hamad Elizabeth Handsley Colin Hawes Christine Landfried Ruth Mackenzie Kate Malleson Derek Matyszakv Ted Morton David O'Brien Alan Paterson Marie Provine Peter H. Russell Eli Salzberger Phillipe Sands Michael Tolley Alexei Trochev Mary Volcansek.
(source: Nielsen Book Data)

• 1. The Supreme Court : law or politics
• 2. The historical dimension of the dilemma
• 3. The Democratic dimension of the dilemma : unelected policymaking
• 4. The institutional dimension of the dilemma : constitutional and self-imposed limitations
• 5. The judicial capacity dimension of the dilemma : does the Supreme Court have the ability to make policy
• 6. The individual dimension of the dilemma : the bases for decisions
• 7. Toward resolving the dilemma : a return to the recent past.

When the Supreme Court's effectively decided the presidential election of 2000, it decision illustrated a classic question in American politics: what is the appropriate role for the Supreme Court? The dilemma is between judicial activism, the Court's willingness to make significant changes in public policy, and judicial restraint, the Court's willingness to confine the use and extent of its power. While the Framers of the Constitution felt that the judiciary would be the "least dangerous branch" of government, many have come to the conclusion that courts govern America, a notion at odds with democratic government.Richard Pacelle traces the historical ebb and flow of the Court's role in the critical issues of American politics: slavery, free speech, religion, abortion, and affirmative action. Pacelle examines the arguments for judicial restraint, including that unelected judges making policy runs against democratic principles, and the arguments for judicial activism, including the important role the court has played as a protector of minority rights. Pacelle suggests that there needs to be a balance between judicial activism and restraint in light of the constraints on the institution and its power. Stimulating and sure to generate discussion, The Supreme Court in American Politics is a concise supplemental text for American Government and Judicial Politics course.
(source: Nielsen Book Data)

• The plain meaning of the constitution : the fallacy of direct enforcement
• The model : what doctrine is for
• From activism to legitimacy
• Equal protection, criminal procedure, executive detention
• Gay rights : Romer, Lawrence, and Goodridge
• Abortion : Roe and Casey
• Takings : Kelo v. City of New London
• The establishment clause
• The death penalty : Roper and Atkins
• The First Amendment : campaign finance reform
• Refusing to defer
• Reviled decisions
• Branches behaving badly : whom do you trust?

This carefully considered book is a welcome addition to the debate over 'judicial activism'. Constitutional scholar Kermit Roosevelt offers an elegantly simple way to resolve the heated discord between conservatives, who argue that the Constitution is immutable, and progressives, who insist it is a living document that must be reinterpreted in new cultural contexts so that its meaning evolves. Roosevelt uses plain language and compelling examples to explain how the Constitution can be both a constant and an organic document. Recent years have witnessed an increasing drumbeat of complaints about judicial behaviour, focusing particularly on Supreme Court decisions that critics charge are reflections of the Justices' political preferences rather than enforcement of the Constitution. The author takes a balanced look at these controversial decisions through a compelling new lens of constitutional interpretation. He clarifies the task of the Supreme Court in constitutional cases, then sets out a model to describe how the Court creates doctrine to implement the meaning of the Constitution. Finally, Roosevelt uses this model to show which decisions can be justified as legitimate and which cannot.
(source: Nielsen Book Data)

• The plain meaning of the constitution : the fallacy of direct enforcement
• The model : what doctrine is for
• From activism to legitimacy
• Equal protection, criminal procedure, executive detention
• Gay rights : Romer, Lawrence, and Goodridge
• Abortion : Roe and Casey
• Takings : Kelo v. City of New London
• The establishment clause
• The death penalty : Roper and Atkins
• The First Amendment : campaign finance reform
• Refusing to defer
• Reviled decisions
• Branches behaving badly : whom do you trust?

This carefully considered book is a welcome addition to the debate over 'judicial activism'. Constitutional scholar Kermit Roosevelt offers an elegantly simple way to resolve the heated discord between conservatives, who argue that the Constitution is immutable, and progressives, who insist it is a living document that must be reinterpreted in new cultural contexts so that its meaning evolves. Roosevelt uses plain language and compelling examples to explain how the Constitution can be both a constant and an organic document. Recent years have witnessed an increasing drumbeat of complaints about judicial behaviour, focusing particularly on Supreme Court decisions that critics charge are reflections of the Justices' political preferences rather than enforcement of the Constitution. The author takes a balanced look at these controversial decisions through a compelling new lens of constitutional interpretation. He clarifies the task of the Supreme Court in constitutional cases, then sets out a model to describe how the Court creates doctrine to implement the meaning of the Constitution. Finally, Roosevelt uses this model to show which decisions can be justified as legitimate and which cannot.
(source: Nielsen Book Data)

• The origins of American judicial independence and accountability
• Congressional oversight of the judicial branch and the emergence of customary independence
• The decline and fall of impeachment as a means to control judicial decision making
• Judicial appointments and the prospective accountability of judicial nominees to the U.S. Senate
• The role of the courts in preserving customary independence
• The dynamic equilibrium.

• Introduction : the accountability function of courts in new democracies / Siri Gloppen, Roberto Gargarella, and Elin Skaar
• Judicial review in developed democracies / Martin Shapiro
• How some reflections on the United States' experience may inform African efforts to build court systems and the rule of law / Jennifer Widner
• The constitutional court and control of presidential extraordinary powers in Colombia / Rodrigo Uprimny
• The politics of judicial review in Chile in the era of domestic transition, 1990-2002 / Javier A. Couso
• Legitimating transformation : political resource allocation in the South African constitutional court / Theunis Roux
• The accountability function of courts in Tanzania and Zambia / Siri Gloppen
• Renegotiating "law and order" : judicial reform and citizen responses in post-war Guatemala / Rachel Sieder
• Economic reform and judicial governance in Brazil : balancing independence with accountability / Carlos Santiso
• In search of a democratic justice--what courts should not do : Argentina, 1983-2002 / Roberto Gargarella
• Lessons learned and the way forward / Irwin P. Stotzky.

This title examines the political role of courts in new democracies in Latin America and Africa, focusing on their ability to hold political power-holders accountable when they act outside their constitutionally defined powers. The book also issues a warning: There are problems inherent in the current global move towards strong constitutional government, where increasingly strong powers are placed in the hands of judges who themselves are not made accountable.

• 1: Montesquieu's jurisprudence and new judicial power
• Moderating liberalism and common law: spirit and juridical liberty
• Moderate and juridical government: the spirit of constitutional liberty
• Projects for reform: due process, national spirit, and liberal toleration
• The new aristocracy of the robe: history, reason, and judicial prudence
• 2: Blackstone and the Montesquieuan constitution
• Blackstone's liberal education for law and politics
• A gothic and liberal Constitution: Blackstone's tempering of sovereignty
• Blackstone, Lord Mansfield, and common-law liberalism
• 3: Montesquieu's judicial legacy in America
• Hamilton's common-law constitutionalism and judicial prudence
• Tocqueville's judicial statesmanship and common-law spirit
• Holmes and judicialized liberalism
• Conclusion: the cloaking of power and the perpetuation of constitutionalism.

How did the United States judiciary become so powerful - powerful enough that state and federal judges decided the 2000 presidential election? What consequences does this have for the law, constitutionalism and liberal democracy both in America and internationally. In "The Cloaking of Power", Paul O. Carrese provides a provocative and original analysis of the intellectual sources of today's most powerful judiciary. Carrese argues that Montesquieu, in his "Spirit of the Laws" was the first to articulate a new conception of the separation of powers and the need for a strong and active judiciary. He instructed statesmen and judges to "cloak power" by placing the robed power at the centre of politics, while concealing judges behind citizen juries and subtle reforms. Tracing Montesquieu's conception of judicial power through Blackstone, Hamilton and Tocqueville, Carrese shows how it led to the prominence of judges, courts and lawyers in America today. But he places the blame for contemporary judicial activism squarely at the feet of Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., and his jurisprudential revolution.
(source: Nielsen Book Data)
How did the US judiciary become so powerfulOCopowerful enough that state and federal judges once vied to decide a presidential election? What does this prominence mean for the law, constitutionalism, and liberal democracy? In "The Cloaking of Power, " Paul O. Carrese provides a provocative analysis of the intellectual sources of todayOCOs powerful judiciary, arguing that Montesquieu, in his "Spirit of the Laws, " first articulated a new conception of the separation of powers and strong but subtle courts. Montesquieu instructed statesmen to OC cloak powerOCO by placing judges at the center of politics, while concealing them behind juries and subtle reforms. Tracing this conception through Blackstone, Hamilton, and Tocqueville, Carrese shows how it led to the prominence of judges, courts, and lawyers in America today. But he places the blame for contemporary judicial activism squarely at the feet of Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. and his jurisprudential revolution, which he believes to be the source of the now-prevalent view that judging is merely political. To address this crisis, Carrese argues for a rediscovery of an independent judiciaryOCoone that blends prudence and natural law with common law and that observes the moderate jurisprudence of Montesquieu and Blackstone, balancing abstract principles with realistic views of human nature and institutions. He also advocates for a return to the complex constitutionalism of the American founders and Tocqueville and for judges who understand their responsibility to elevate citizens above individualism, instructing them in law and right.".
(source: Nielsen Book Data)

• 1: Montesquieu's jurisprudence and new judicial power
• Moderating liberalism and common law: spirit and juridical liberty
• Moderate and juridical government: the spirit of constitutional liberty
• Projects for reform: due process, national spirit, and liberal toleration
• The new aristocracy of the robe: history, reason, and judicial prudence
• 2: Blackstone and the Montesquieuan constitution
• Blackstone's liberal education for law and politics
• A gothic and liberal Constitution: Blackstone's tempering of sovereignty
• Blackstone, Lord Mansfield, and common-law liberalism
• 3: Montesquieu's judicial legacy in America
• Hamilton's common-law constitutionalism and judicial prudence
• Tocqueville's judicial statesmanship and common-law spirit
• Holmes and judicialized liberalism
• Conclusion: the cloaking of power and the perpetuation of constitutionalism.

How did the US judiciary become so powerfulOCopowerful enough that state and federal judges once vied to decide a presidential election? What does this prominence mean for the law, constitutionalism, and liberal democracy? In "The Cloaking of Power, " Paul O. Carrese provides a provocative analysis of the intellectual sources of todayOCOs powerful judiciary, arguing that Montesquieu, in his "Spirit of the Laws, " first articulated a new conception of the separation of powers and strong but subtle courts. Montesquieu instructed statesmen to OC cloak powerOCO by placing judges at the center of politics, while concealing them behind juries and subtle reforms. Tracing this conception through Blackstone, Hamilton, and Tocqueville, Carrese shows how it led to the prominence of judges, courts, and lawyers in America today. But he places the blame for contemporary judicial activism squarely at the feet of Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. and his jurisprudential revolution, which he believes to be the source of the now-prevalent view that judging is merely political. To address this crisis, Carrese argues for a rediscovery of an independent judiciaryOCoone that blends prudence and natural law with common law and that observes the moderate jurisprudence of Montesquieu and Blackstone, balancing abstract principles with realistic views of human nature and institutions. He also advocates for a return to the complex constitutionalism of the American founders and Tocqueville and for judges who understand their responsibility to elevate citizens above individualism, instructing them in law and right.".
(source: Nielsen Book Data)
How did the United States judiciary become so powerful - powerful enough that state and federal judges decided the 2000 presidential election? What consequences does this have for the law, constitutionalism and liberal democracy both in America and internationally. In "The Cloaking of Power", Paul O. Carrese provides a provocative and original analysis of the intellectual sources of today's most powerful judiciary. Carrese argues that Montesquieu, in his "Spirit of the Laws" was the first to articulate a new conception of the separation of powers and the need for a strong and active judiciary. He instructed statesmen and judges to "cloak power" by placing the robed power at the centre of politics, while concealing judges behind citizen juries and subtle reforms. Tracing Montesquieu's conception of judicial power through Blackstone, Hamilton and Tocqueville, Carrese shows how it led to the prominence of judges, courts and lawyers in America today. But he places the blame for contemporary judicial activism squarely at the feet of Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., and his jurisprudential revolution.
(source: Nielsen Book Data)

• How courts came to govern
• How Congress creates rights
• How courts enforce rights
• Something new is going on in court
• How court management works
• A good thing gone wrong
• Why the wrong thing continues
• Road to reform
• New principles.

Schools, welfare agencies, and a wide variety of other state and local institutions of vital importance to US citizens are actually controlled by attorneys and judges rather than governors and mayors. In this text, Ross Sandler and David Schoenbrod explain how this has come to pass, why it has resulted in service to the public that is worse, not better, and what can be done to restore control of these programmes to democratically elected, and accountable, officials. Sandler and Schoenbrod tell how the courts, with the best intentions and often with the approval of elected officials, came to control ordinary policy making through court decrees. These court regimes, they assert, impose rigid and often ancient detailed plans that can flounder on reality. Newly elected officials, who may wish to alter the plans in response to the changing wishes of voters, cannot do so unless attorneys, court-appointed functionaries and lower-echelon officials agree. The result is neither judicial government nor good government, say Sandler and Schoenbrod, and they offer practical reforms that would set governments free from this judicial stranglehold, allow courts to do their legitimate job of protecting rights, and strengthen democracy.
(source: Nielsen Book Data)

• Contributors include Joseph F. Fletcher (Toronto), Janet Hiebert (Queen's), Gregory Hein (Toronto), Peter W. Hogg (York), Paul Howe, Rainer Knopff (Calgary), Sebastien 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).
• (source: Nielsen Book Data)

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 of 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. The controversy raises 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: should judges 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. Paul Howe is research director at the Institute for Research on Public Policy. Peter H. Russell is a political scientist and University Professor Emeritus at the University of Toronto. He has written extensively on the judiciary.
(source: Nielsen Book Data)

• Contributors include Joseph F. Fletcher (Toronto), Janet Hiebert (Queen's), Gregory Hein (Toronto), Peter W. Hogg (York), Paul Howe, Rainer Knopff (Calgary), Sebastien 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).
• (source: Nielsen Book Data)

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 of 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. The controversy raises 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: should judges 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. Paul Howe is research director at the Institute for Research on Public Policy. Peter H. Russell is a political scientist and University Professor Emeritus at the University of Toronto. He has written extensively on the judiciary.
(source: Nielsen Book Data)