scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Journal ArticleDOI

Explaining Dissent on the Supreme Court of Canada

TL;DR: This paper found that the likelihood of dissension is strongly related to four broad factors that appear to exert independent influence on whether the Court is consensual or divided: political conflict, institutional structure, legal ambiguity in the law and variations in the leadership style of the chief justice.
Abstract: . While there is an extensive literature on the causes of dissensus on appellate courts in the US, few empirical studies exist of the causes of dissent in Canadian Supreme Court. The current study seeks to close that gap in the literature, proposing and then testing what we call a Canadian model of dissent. We find that the likelihood of dissent is strongly related to four broad factors that appear to exert independent influence on whether the Court is consensual or divided: political conflict, institutional structure, legal ambiguity in the law and variations in the leadership style of the chief justice.Resume. Les causes de dissension dans les cours d'appel aux Etats-Unis font l'objet de nombreux articles et publications, mais il existe tres peu d'etudes empiriques sur les causes de dissidence a la Cour supreme du Canada. La presente etude vise a combler cette lacune en proposant, un modele canadien de dissension, puis en le mettant a l'epreuve. Nous avons constate que le risque de dissension est fortement lie a quatre facteurs generaux qui semblent exercer une influence independante, que la Cour soit en accord ou divisee. Ces facteurs sont le conflit politique, la structure institutionnelle, la presence d'une ambiguite juridique dans la loi et le style de direction du juge en chef.
Citations
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors examine the role of race and ethnicity in the election of African-Americans and Asian-Americans in the United States, and suggest that the gains realized by African-American incumbents might be owing to general incumbency effects rather than learning among whites.
Abstract: Americans, and to the generalization of the approach to study Latino and Asian-American incumbents. This study opens several lines of investigation for future research. First, it admirably grapples with the difficult question of directionality—whether it is the election of African Americans that is affecting whites’ voting behavior and attitudes or whether whites’ behavior and attitudes are responsible for electing African Americans. However, more might be done to understand how much each mechanism might be at work, perhaps by relying on panel data. In addition, the text carefully wrestles with the possibility that the gains realized by African-American incumbents might be owing to general incumbency effects rather than learning among whites. Future studies might compare the gains realized by African-American incumbents to those of white incumbents to gain additional leverage on this question. Appropriate for use in advanced undergraduate courses and graduate seminars on race and ethnicity and urban politics, this thought-provoking book is highly recommended.

5 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) has stronger norms of consensus and preferences for unanimous decisions than its American counterpart as discussed by the authors, and given this powerful preference for collegial and unanimous d...
Abstract: The Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) has stronger norms of consensus and preferences for unanimous decisions than its American counterpart. Given this powerful preference for collegial and unanimous d...

1 citations

Book ChapterDOI
01 Jan 2020
TL;DR: The Moglichkeit, eine abweichende Meinung zu einer Gerichtsentscheidung in Form eines Sondervotums bekanntzugeben, is heute in der Mehrzahl der Landesverfassungsgerichte gesetzlich vorgesehen.
Abstract: Die Moglichkeit, eine abweichende Meinung zu einer Gerichtsentscheidung in Form eines Sondervotums bekanntzugeben, ist heute in der Mehrzahl der Landesverfassungsgerichte gesetzlich vorgesehen. Nachdem vor allem die Landesverfassungsgerichte in den neuen Bundeslandern sich an dem Modell des Bundesverfassungsgerichts orientierten und das Instrument etablierten, folgten zuletzt Schleswig-Holstein und Nordrhein-Westfalen. Gleichwohl unterlies es die Politikwissenschaft uber lange Zeit, sich mit der empirischen Relevanz, den individuellen Beweggrunden und den institutionellen Rahmenbedingungen von Sondervoten auseinanderzusetzen. Der Beitrag schliest in dieser Hinsicht eine Lucke. Es werden die landesrechtlichen Regelungen zu Sondervoten in Landesverfassungsgerichten in allen 16 Bundeslandern berucksichtigt. Daruber hinaus werden Sondervoten hinsichtlich Umfang, Verfahrensbezug und Autorenschaft in sechs ausgewahlten Landesverfassungsgerichten (Bayerischer Verfassungsgerichtshof, Bremischer Staatsgerichtshof, Landesverfassungsgericht Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, Landesverfassungsgericht von Sachsen-Anhalt, Schleswig-Holsteinisches Landesverfassungsgericht, Thuringer Verfassungsgerichtshof) eingehender analysiert. Ausgewahlte Entscheidungen mit Sondervoten dienen der Illustration der Motive und inhaltlichen Begrundung der Abgabe abweichender Richtermeinungen.
Journal ArticleDOI
11 Jul 2022
TL;DR: In this paper , the authors explore the role of decision-level factors in the likelihood of a judge to write a dissenting opinion in German subnational constitutional courts (Landesverfassungsgerichte).
Abstract: Dissent is an integral feature of decision-making in collegial courts. However, unless procedural rules provide for the publication of a dissenting opinion and judges make use of this opportunity, courts appear to outsiders as impersonal, monolithic institutions. The following contribution explores dissenting opinions in German subnational constitutional courts (Landesverfassungsgerichte). Today, most of these courts provide for open dissenting opinions. Based on an empirical analysis of 1,115 cases decided by the constitutional courts of ten states (Länder) over a ten-year period (2009–2018), I find that dissent is driven predominantly by decision-level factors. Notably, the likelihood of dissent increases where a decision taps into the relationship between federal and state constitutional law and where more than one dissenting opinion is published. By contrast, I find no evidence for ideology or career background to impinge on the decision of a judge to author a dissenting opinion.
References
More filters
Book
10 Sep 2014
TL;DR: In this article, the authors present a brief tutorial for estimating, testing, fit, and interpretation of ordinal and binary outcomes using Stata. But they do not discuss how to apply these models to other estimation commands, such as post-estimation analysis.
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

4,703 citations

Book
26 Feb 1993
TL;DR: In this article, two leading scholars of the US Supreme Court and its policy making, systematically present and validates the use of the attitudinal model to explain and predict Supreme Court decision making.
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.

895 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Using content analytic techniques, this paper derived independent and reliable measures of the values of all Supreme Court justices from Earl Warren to Anthony Kennedy, providing strong support for the attitudinal model.
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.

633 citations