Explaining Dissent on the Supreme Court of Canada

Abstract: Authored by Ingrid Schneider The essence of this Opinion is supported by Christoph Then This document is a dissenting opinion to the Report on patents in the field of human stem cells (hereinafter referred to as the “Report”) of the Expert Group on the development and implications of patent law in the field of biotechnology and genetic engineering (E02973). As in the Report, this dissenting opinion is focused on human stem cells, human embryos and gametes as well as the application of the ordre public and morality clause of Art. 53 EPC and the respective Articles 5 and 6 in the Directive 98/44/EC. Summary  The Report does not object to “non‐destructive uses” of human embryos (cf. Report, page 18). Article 6(2)c of the Directive, however, considers unpatentable \"uses of human embryos for industrial or commercial purposes\" and does not distinguish between \"destructive\" and \"non‐destructive\" uses of human embryos. It is arbitrary to exclude \"destructive uses\" from patentability and to allow \"non‐destructive\" uses of human embryos.  Even if \"non‐destructive\" uses of human embryos were deemed patentable, the method disclosed in Chung et al. 2008 does not provide sound evidence for a \"non‐ destructive\" use of human embryos, contrary to the Report (page 20)  Stem cells derived from activated human egg cells (parthenogenetic embryonic stem cells, hpES) are not identical to human embryonic stem cells, and therefore it is inadmissible to grant patents for processes and products on human embryonic stem cells, based on such hpES methods.  Novel methods enable the use of iPS or embryonic stem cells to create artificial gametes and embryos genetically derived from two partners of same sex or from one individual only. It is recommended that both the European Commission and the EPO specify and clarify that the term “germ cell” also includes artificially created egg and sperm cells, and that the term embryo also covers those artificially fused embryos.  Genome editing technologies such as CRISPR have reignited the debate on human germline modification. It is paramount that both the European Commission and the EPO specify and clarify that Articles 6(2)b and 6(2)c apply to CRISPR‐Cas9 and CRISPR‐ Cpf1, if practiced in human germ cells and human embryos.  Transparency and accountability of the work of the EPO requires disclosure of data on patent applications and grants, and revelation of changed granting practices in the EPO's Guidelines for Examination. There is a strong need for a better balance in patent law to secure the proper interpretation of the ordre public and morality exemption in European patent law, in accordance with the purposes and intentions of the European legislator and with the EU's Charter of Fundamental Rights. This requires the European Commission to take the initiative in strengthening the patent exclusions in Articles 5 and 6. In view of the rapid scientific developments it is urgently needed to provide an adequate clarification and precise guidance for the correct interpretation of the Directive 98/44/EC. This would comprise the following possibilities:

Abstract: This article develops an empirical analysis of judicial behavior in the Spanish Supreme Court, a court of law dominated by career judiciary. We focus on administrative review. The evidence seems to confirm that a career judiciary is not strongly politically aligned and favors consensus, formalism, and dissent avoidance. Notwithstanding, we detect a significant relationship between the decisions of the Court and the interest of the government. We suggest that our empirical analysis makes a significant contribution to undermine the myth of political insulation by career judges. Unlike previous literature, however, we argue and illustrate that judicial politicization can be consistent with consensus and dissent avoidance.

Abstract: This article develops an empirical analysis of judicial behavior in the Spanish Supreme Court, a court of law dominated by career judiciary. We focus on administrative review. The evidence seems to confirm that a career judiciary is not strongly politically aligned and favors consensus, formalism, and dissent avoidance. Notwithstanding, we detect a significant relationship between the decisions of the Court and the interest of the government. We suggest that our empirical analysis makes a significant contribution to undermine the myth of political insulation by career judges. Unlike previous literature, however, we argue and illustrate that judicial politicization can be consistent with consensus and dissent avoidance.

Abstract: Different theories have been developed, mainly in the context of the United States, to explain judicial decision-making. In this respect, there is an important ongoing debate over whether judges are guided by the law or by personal ideology. The analysis of the decision-making in the Polish Constitutional Tribunal seems to support the existence of some party alignment. It is to say that judicial behavior is influenced by the ideology, either because judges’ preferences coincide with the interests of a specific party or because the judges are incentivized to show their loyalty to a party. Party alignment exists but subject to institutional influences. These results are in line with previous findings for other constitutional courts in Europe.

Abstract: Preface PART I GENERAL INFORMATION Introduction What is this book about? Which models are considered? Whom is this book for? How is the book organized? What software do you need? Where can I learn more about the models? Introduction to Stata The Stata interface Abbreviations How to get help The working directory Stata file types Saving output to log files Using and saving datasets Size limitations on datasets Do-files Using Stata for serious data analysis Syntax of Stata commands Managing data Creating new variables Labeling variables and values Global and local macros Graphics A brief tutorial Estimation, Testing, Fit, and Interpretation Estimation Postestimation analysis Testing estat command Measures of fit Interpretation Confidence intervals for prediction Next steps PART II MODELS FOR SPECIFIC KINDS OF OUTCOMES Models for Binary Outcomes The statistical model Estimation using logit and probit Hypothesis testing with test and lrtest Residuals and influence using predict Measuring fit Interpretation using predicted values Interpretation using odds ratios with listcoef Other commands for binary outcomes Models for Ordinal Outcomes The statistical model Estimation using ologit and oprobit Hypothesis testing with test and lrtest Scalar measures of fit using fitstat Converting to a different parameterization The parallel regression assumption Residuals and outliers using predict Interpretation Less common models for ordinal outcomes Models for Nominal Outcomes with Case-Specific Data The multinomial logit model Estimation using mlogit Hypothesis testing of coefficients Independence of irrelevant alternatives Measures of fit Interpretation Multinomial probit model with IIA Stereotype logistic regression Models for Nominal Outcomes with Alternative-Specific Data Alternative-specific data organization The conditional logit model Alternative-specific multinomial probit The sturctural covariance matrix Rank-ordered logistic regression Conclusions Models for Count Outcomes The Poisson distribution The Poisson regression model The negative binomial regression model Models for truncated counts The hurdle regression model Zero-inflated count models Comparisons among count models Using countfit to compare count models More Topics Ordinal and nominal independent variables Interactions Nonlinear models Using praccum and forvalues to plot predictions Extending SPost to other estimation commands Using Stata more efficiently Conclusions Appendix A Syntax for SPost Commands Appendix B Description of Datasets References Author Index Subject Index

Abstract: This book, authored by two leading scholars of the Supreme Court and its policy making, systematically presents and validates the use of the attitudinal model to explain and predict Supreme Court decision making. In the process, it critiques the two major alternative models of Supreme Court decision making and their major variants: the legal and rational choice. Using the US Supreme Court Data Base, the justices' private papers, and other sources of information, the book analyzes the appointment process, certiorari, the decision on the merits, opinion assignments, and the formation of opinion coalitions. The book will be the definitive presentation of the attitudinal model as well as an authoritative critique of the legal and rational choice models. The book thoroughly reflects research done since the 1993 publication of its predecessor, as well as decisions and developments in the Supreme Court, including the momentous decision of Bush v. Gore.

Abstract: It is commonly assumed that Supreme Court justices' votes largely reflect their attitudes, values, or personal policy preferences. Nevertheless, this assumption has never been adequately tested with independent measures of the ideological values of justices, that is, measures not taken from their votes on the Court. Using content analytic techniques, we derive independent and reliable measures of the values of all Supreme Court justices from Earl Warren to Anthony Kennedy. These values correlate highly with the votes of the justices, providing strong support for the attitudinal model.