Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-l4dxg Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-09T18:57:48.550Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Explaining Dissent on the Supreme Court of Canada

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 June 2011

Donald R Songer ,
John Szmer  and
Susan W Johnson
Donald R Songer*
Affiliation:
University of South Carolina
John Szmer*
Affiliation:
University of North Carolina at Charlotte
Susan W Johnson*
Affiliation:
University of North Carolina at Greensboro
*
Donald R Songer, Department of Political Science, University of South Carolina, Gambrell Hall, Columbia, SC 29208, USA, [email protected]
John Szmer, Department of Political Science, University of North Carolina at Charlotte, Fretwell 440, 9201 University City Boulevard, Charlotte, NC 28223-0001, USA, [email protected]
Susan W Johnson, Department of Political Science, University of North Carolina at Greensboro, 233 Graham Building, Greensboro, NC 27402, USA, [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

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.

Résumé. Les causes de dissension dans les cours d'appel aux États-Unis font l'objet de nombreux articles et publications, mais il existe très peu d'études empiriques sur les causes de dissidence à la Cour suprême du Canada. La présente étude vise à combler cette lacune en proposant, un modèle canadien de dissension, puis en le mettant à l'épreuve. Nous avons constaté que le risque de dissension est fortement lié à quatre facteurs genéraux qui semblent exercer une influence indépendante, que la Cour soit en accord ou divisée. Ces facteurs sont le conflit politique, la structure institutionnelle, la présence d'une ambiguité juridique dans la loi et le style de direction du juge en chef.

Type
Research Article
Information
Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue canadienne de science politique , Volume 44 , Issue 2 , June 2011 , pp. 389 - 409
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Political Science Association 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Atkins, Burton M. 1973. “Judicial Behavior and Tendencies towards Conformity in a Three-Member Small Group: A Case Study of Dissent Behavior in the US Courts of Appeals.” Social Science Quarterly 54: 41–53.Google Scholar
Atkins, Burton M. and Glick, Henry R.. 1976. “Environmental and Structural Variables as Determinants of Issues in State Courts of Last Resort.” American Journal of Political Science 20: 97–114.Google Scholar
Atkins, Burton M. and Green, Justin J.. 1976. “Consensus on the United States Courts of Appeals: Illusion or Reality.” American Journal of Political Science 20(1): 735–48.Google Scholar
Beiser, Edward N. 1974. “The Rhode Island Supreme Court: A Well-Integrated Political System.” Law and Society Review 8(2): 167–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brace, Paul and Hall, Melinda Gann. 1990. “Neo-Institutionalism and Dissent in State Supreme Courts.” Journal of Politics 52(1): 54–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brace, Paul and Hall, Melinda Gann. 1993. “Integrated Models of Judicial Dissent.” Journal of Politics 55(4): 914–35.Google Scholar
Brenner, Saul and Spaeth, Harold J.. 1988. “Majority Opinion Assignment and the Maintenance of the Original Coalition on the Warren Court.” American Journal of Political Science 32(1): 72–81.Google Scholar
Canon, Bradley C. and Jaros, Dean. 1970. “External Variables, Institutional Structure, and Dissent on State Supreme Courts” Polity 3(2): 175–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Danelski, David J. 1986. “Causes and Consequences of Conflict and Its Resolution in the Supreme Court.” In Judicial Conflict and Consensus: Behavioral Studies of American Appellate Courts, ed. Goldman, Sheldon and Lamb, Charles M.. Lexington: University of Kentucky Press.Google Scholar
Flemming, Roy B. 2004. Tournament of Appeals: Granting Judicial Review in Canada. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press.Google Scholar
Glick, Henry Robert and Vines, Kenneth N.. 1973. State Court Systems. Englewood Cliffs NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Glick, Henry Robert and Pruet, George W. Jr. 1986. “Dissent in State Supreme Courts: Patterns and Correlates of Conflict.” In Judicial Conflict and Consensus: Behavioral Studies of American Appellate Courts, ed. Goldman, Sheldon and Lamb, Charles M.. Lexington: University of Kentucky Press.Google Scholar
Goff, Brian. 2005. “Supreme Court Consensus and Dissent: Estimating the Role of the Selection Screen.” Public Choice 122: 483–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldman, Sheldon. 1969. “Backgrounds, Attitudes, and the Voting Behavior of Judges: A Comment on Joel Grossman's Social Backgrounds and Judicial Decisions.” Journal of Politics 31(1): 214–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldman, Sheldon. 1975. “Voting Behavior on the United States Courts of Appeals Revisited.” American Political Science Review 69(2): 491–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldman, Sheldon and Lamb, Charles M., eds. 1986. Judicial Conflict and Consensus: Behavioral Studies of American Appellate Courts. Lexington: University of Kentucky Press.Google Scholar
Greene, Ian, Baar, Carl, McCormick, Peter, Szablowski, George and Thomas, Martin. 1998. Final Appeal: Decision-Making in Canadian Courts of Appeal. Toronto: James Lorimer.Google Scholar
Hall, Melinda Gann and Brace, Paul. 1992. “Toward an Integrated Model of Judicial Voting Behavior.” American Politics Quarterly 20(2): 147–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halpern, Stephen C. and Vines, Kenneth N.. 1977. “Institutional Disunity, the Judges' Bill and the Role of the US Supreme Court.” Western Political Quarterly 30(4): 471–83.Google Scholar
Hand, Learned. 1968. The Bill of Rights. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Handberg, Roger. 1978. “Leadership in State Courts of Last Resort: The Interaction of Environment and Procedure.” Jurimetrics 19: 178–85.Google Scholar
Haynie, Stacia L., Sheehan, Reginald S., Songer, Donald R., and Tate, C. Neal. 2007. High Courts Judicial Database. Accessed at the University of South Carolina Judicial Research Initiative (www.cas.sc.edu/poli/juri)Google Scholar
Heard, Andrew D. 1991. “The Charter in the Supreme Court of Canada: The Importance of Which Judges Hear an Appeal.” Canadian Journal of Political Science 24(2): 289–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hettinger, Virginia A., Lindquist, Stefanie A. and Martinek, Wendy L.. 2006. Judging on a Collegial Court: Influences on Federal Appellate Decision Making. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press.Google Scholar
Howard, J. Woodford Jr. 1981. Courts of Appeals in the Federal Judicial System: A Study of the Second, Fifth and District of Columbia Circuits. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Jaros, Dean and Canon, Bradley C.. 1971. “Dissent of State Supreme Courts: The Differential Significance of Characteristics of Judges.” Midwest Journal of Political Science 15(2): 322–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Joseph, Christine M. 2006. “All but One: Solo Dissents on the Modern Supreme Court of Canada.” Osgoode Hall Law Journal 44: 501–525Google Scholar
Kagan, Robert A., Cartwright, Bliss, Friedman, Lawrence M. and Wheeler, Stanton. 1978. “The Evolution of State Supreme Courts.” Michigan Law Review 76(6): 961–1005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lamb, Charles M. 1986. “A Microlevel Analysis of Appeals Court Conflict: Warren Burger and His Colleagues on the DC Circuit.” In Judicial Conflict and Consensus: Behavioral Studies of American Appellate Courts, ed. Goldman, Sheldon and Lamb, Charles M.. Lexington: University of Kentucky Press.Google Scholar
Long, J. Scott and Freese, Jeremy. 2006. Regression Models for Categorical Dependent Variables Using Stata. College Station TX: Stata Press.Google Scholar
Maltzman, Forrest, Spriggs, James F. II, and Wahlbeck, Paul J.. 2000. Crafting Law on the Supreme Court: the Collegial Game. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
McCormick, Peter. 1998. “Birds of a Feather: Alliances and Influences on the Lamer Court 1990–1997.” Osgoode Hall Law Journal 36(Summer): 339–68.Google Scholar
McCormick, Peter. 2000. Supreme at Last: The Evolution of the Supreme Court of Canada. Toronto: James Lorimer.Google Scholar
McCormick, Peter. 2003. “With respect … Levels of Disagreement on the Lamer Court, 1990–2000.” McGill Law Journal 48(March): 89–116.Google Scholar
Newman, John O. 1992. “A Study of Appellate Reversals.” Brooklyn Law Review 58 (Spring): 629–40.Google Scholar
Ostberg, C. L. and Wetstein, Matthew. 1998. “Dimensions of Attitudes Underlying Search and Seizure Decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada.” Canadian Journal of Political Science 31(4): 767–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ostberg, C. L. and Wetstein, Matthew E.. 2007. Attitudinal Decision Making in the Supreme Court of Canada. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press.Google Scholar
Ostberg, C.L., Wetstein, Matthew E. and Ducat, Craig R.. 2004. “Leaders, Followers, and Outsiders: Task and Social Leadership on the Canadian Supreme Court in the Early Nineties.” Polity 36(3): 505–28.Google Scholar
Ostberg, C.L., Wetstein, Matthew, Songer, Donald R. and Johnson, Susan W.. 2009. “Ideological Consistency and Attitudinal Conflict: A Comparative Analysis of the US and Canadian Supreme Courts.” Comparative Political Studies 42(6): 763–92.Google Scholar
Patterson, John W. and Rathjen, Gregory J.. 1976. “Background Diversity and State Supreme Court Dissent Behavior.” Polity 8(Summer): 610–22.Google Scholar
Peck, Sidney. 1969. “A Scalogram Analysis of the Supreme Court of Canada, 1958–1967.” In Comparative Judicial Behavior: Cross-Cultural Studies of Political Decision-Making in the East and West, ed. Schubert, Glendon and Danelski, David J.. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Peterson, Steven A. 1981. “Dissent in American Courts.” Journal of Politics 43(2): 412–34.Google Scholar
Posner, Richard A. 1996. The Federal Courts: Challenge and Reform. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Richardson, Richard J. and Vines, Kenneth N.. 1970. The Politics of Federal Courts: Lower Courts in the United States. Boston: Little, Brown.Google Scholar
Robertson, David. 1998. Judicial Discretion in the House of Lords. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Russell, Peter H. 1992. “The Supreme Court in the 1980s: A Commentary on the SCR Statistics.” Osgoode Hall Law Journal 30: 771–95.Google Scholar
Scalia, Antonin. 1994. “The Dissenting Opinion.” Journal of Supreme Court History 19: 33–44.Google Scholar
Schubert, Glendon A. 1965. The Judicial Mind: The Attitudes and Ideologies of Supreme Court Justices, 1946–1963. Evanston IL: Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar
Schwartz, Michael J. 2008. “Our Fractured Supreme Court.” Policy Review 147(Feb/March): 3–16.Google Scholar
Segal, Jeffrey A. and Cover, Albert D.. 1989. “Ideological Values and the Votes of U.S. Supreme Court Justices.” American Political Science Review 83(2): 557–65.Google Scholar
Segal, Jeffrey A. and Spaeth, Harold J.. 2002. The Supreme Court and the Attitudinal Model Revisited. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smyth, Russell. 2005. “The Role of Attitudinal, Institutional, and Environmental Factors in Explaining Variations in the Dissent Rate on the High Court of Australia.” Australian Journal of Political Science 40(4): 519–40.Google Scholar
Snell, James G. and Vaughan, Frederick. 1985. The Supreme Court of Canada: History of the Institution. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Songer, Donald R. 1986. “Factors Affecting Variations in Rates of Dissent in the U.S. Courts of Appeals.” In Judicial Conflict and Consensus: Behavioral Studies of American Appellate Courts, ed. Goldman, Sheldon and Lamb, Charles M.. Lexington: University of Kentucky Press.Google Scholar
Songer, Donald R. 2008. The Transformation of the Supreme Court of Canada: An Empirical Examination. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
Songer, Donald R. and Johnson, Susan W.. 2007. “Judicial Decision Making In the Supreme Court of Canada: Updating the Personal Attribute Model.” Canadian Journal of Political Science 40(4): 911–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tate, C. Neal. 1981. “Personal Attribute Models of the Voting Behavior of U.S. Supreme Court Justices: Liberalism in Civil Liberties and Economic Decisions, 1946–1978.” American Political Science Review 75(June): 355–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tate, C. Neal and Sittiwong, Panu. 1989. “Decision Making in the Canadian Supreme Court: Extending the Personal Attributes Model Across Nations.” Journal of Politics 51(4): 900–16.Google Scholar
Wahlbeck, Paul J., Spriggs, James F. II and Maltzman, Forrest. 1999. “The Politics of Dissents and Concurrences on the U.S. Supreme Court.” American Politics Quarterly 27(4): 488–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wold, John T. and Caldeira, Greg A.. 1980. “Perceptions of Routine Decision Making in Five California Courts of Appeals.” Polity 13(Winter): 334–47.Google Scholar