Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-01T23:10:02.833Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Questioning Judges with a Questionable Process: An Analysis of Committee Appearances by Canadian Supreme Court Candidates

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 December 2015

Andrea Lawlor  and
Erin Crandall
Andrea Lawlor*
Affiliation:
King's University College, Western University
Erin Crandall*
Affiliation:
Acadia University
*
Department of Political Science, King's University College, Western University, 266 Epworth Ave., London ON N6A 2M3, Email: [email protected]
Department of Politics, Acadia University, 10 Highland Ave., Wolfville NS B4P 2R6, Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In 2006, the Canadian government introduced a new component to its process of selecting Supreme Court justices, a review committee composed of members of Parliament. Tasked with interviewing justices prior to their appointment to the bench, the committee met four times, interviewing only five of the eight judicial candidates appointed to the bench before the Conservative government announced the committee's termination in 2014. This study offers the first comprehensive analysis of the performance of this ad hoc judicial review committee. Using an original dataset, we find that MPs asked little by way of probing questions, such as those related to policy or a candidate's previous jurisprudence. However, we do find some evidence that the hearing process was used to further the political aims of the participating political parties.

Résumé

En 2006, le gouvernement canadien a introduit un nouvel élément dans le processus de sélection des juges de la Cour suprême du Canada. En effet, un comité de suivi composé de membres du Parlement fait maintenant partie de la procédure de sélection. Ce comité a la responsabilité d'interviewer les candidats à la Cour avant que la nomination soit confirmée. Entre l'ajout de cette procédure et son abolition par le gouvernement conservateur en 2014, seulement cinq des huit nominations ont été étudiées par le comité. Cet article propose une première analyse exhaustive de la performance de ce comité. À l'aide d'une base de données originale, nous concluons que les membres du comité parlementaire sont peu enclins à poser des questions touchant les politiques publiques ou encore la jurisprudence des candidats. Nous remarquons par contre que les activités du comité ont été instrumentalisées par les partis ayant des représentants sur ce comité.

Type
Research Article
Information
Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue canadienne de science politique , Volume 48 , Issue 4 , December 2015 , pp. 863 - 883
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Political Science Association (l'Association canadienne de science politique) and/et la Société québécoise de science politique 2015 

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

Aucoin, Peter, and Turnbull, Lori. 2003. “The Democratic Deficit: Paul Martin and Parliamentary Reform.” Canadian Public Administration 46 (4): 427–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Batta, Anna, Collins, Paul M. Jr., Miles, Tom and Ringhand, Lori A.. 2012. “Let's Talk: Judicial Decisions at Supreme Court Confirmation Hearings.” Judicature 96 (1): 7–15.Google Scholar
Bélanger, Éric. 2003. “Issue Ownership by Canadian Political Parties 1953–2001.” Canadian Journal of Political Science 36 (3): 539–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bélanger, Éric, and Meguid, Bonnie M.. 2008. “Issue Salience, Issue Ownership, and Issue-Based Vote Choice.” Electoral Studies 27 (3): 477–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blais, André, Gidengil, Elisabeth, Nadeau, Richard and Nevitte, Neil. 2002. Anatomy of a Liberal Victory: Making Sense of the Vote in the 2000 Canadian Election. Peterborough: Broadview Press.Google Scholar
Cotler, Irwin. 2014. “Conservatives Are Turning Back the Clock on Appointments to Supreme Court.” Toronto Star, June 10.Google Scholar
Cotler, Irwin. 2005. “Proposal for the Reform of the Supreme Court of Canada Appointments Process.” Department of Justice Canada, http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/webarchives/20060209163819/http://www.canada.justice.gc.ca/en/news/sp/2005/doc_31432.html (May 23, 2015).Google Scholar
Cotler, Irwin. 2008. “The Supreme Court Appointment Process: Chronology, Context, and Reform.” University of New Brunswick Law Journal 58: 131–46.Google Scholar
Crandall, Erin. 2013. “Intergovernmental Relations and the Supreme Court of Canada: The Changing Place of the Provinces in Judicial Selection Reform.” In The Democratic Dilemma: Reforming Canada's Supreme Court, ed. Verrelli, Nadia. Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press.Google Scholar
Curry, Bill. 2006. “Top-Court Pick Praised, Review Process Panned.” The Globe and Mail (Toronto), February 24.Google Scholar
Dodek, Adam M. 2014a. “Supreme Court Appointments: Fix the Process or Scrap It.” The Globe and Mail (Toronto), January 22.Google Scholar
Dodek, Adam M. 2014b. “Reforming the Supreme Court Appointment Process 2004–2014: A Ten-Year Democratic Audit.” University of Ottawa Faculty of Law Working Paper Series WP 2014–07.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farganis, Dion, and Wedeking, Justin. 2011. “‘No Hints, No Forecasts, No Previews’: An Empirical Analysis of Supreme Court Nominee Candor from Harlan to Kagan.” Law & Society Review 45 (3): 525–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fine, Sean. 2014a. “Committee Grilling New Supreme Court Judge Faces Severe Time Crunch.” The Globe and Mail (Toronto), October 1.Google Scholar
Fine, Sean. 2014b. “Harper under Pressure to Review Supreme Court Appointment Process.” The Globe and Mail (Toronto), May 26.Google Scholar
Fine, Sean. 2014c. “Legal Observers Worry Future Judicial Appointments Will Be Done in Secret.” The Globe and Mail (Toronto), September 18.Google Scholar
Fine, Sean. 2014d. “The Secret Short List That Provoked the Rift between Chief Justice and PMO.” The Globe and Mail (Toronto), May 23.Google Scholar
Gidengil, Elisabeth, Nevitte, Neil, Blais, Andre, Everitt, Joanna and Fournier, Patrick. 2012. Dominance and Decline: Making Sense of Recent Canadian Elections. Toronto, ON: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
Goodyear-Grant, Elizabeth, Matthews, J. Scott and Hiebert, Janet. 2013. “The Courts/Parliament Trade-Off: Canadian Attitudes on Judicial Influence in Public Policy.” Commonwealth & Comparative Politics 51 (3): 377–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hausegger, Lori and Riddell, Troy. 2004. “The Changing Nature of Public Support for the Supreme Court of Canada.” Canadian Journal of Political Science 37 (1): 23–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, William. 2004. “Ensuring Supreme Confidence in Judicial Appointments.” Policy Options 25 (5): 41–45.Google Scholar
Kam, Christopher J. 2009. Party Discipline and Parliamentary Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacCharles, Tonda. 2014. “Quebec Lawyer Suzanne Côté Named to Supreme Court of Canada.” The Toronto Star, November 27.Google Scholar
Manning, E. Preston. 1999. “A ‘B’ for Prof. Russell.” Policy Options 20 (3): 15–16.Google Scholar
Mathen, Carissima. 2014. “Supreme Court Appointments: Still More Questions Than Answers.” The Globe and Mail (Toronto), June 4.Google Scholar
Morton, F.L. 2006. “Judicial Appointments in Post-Charter Canada: A System in Transition.” In Appointing Judges in an Age of Judicial Power: Critical Perspectives from around the World, ed. Malleson, Kate and Russell, Peter H.. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
Ostberg, Cynthia L, and Wetstein, Matthew E. 2007. Attitudinal Decision Making in the Supreme Court of Canada. Vancouver: UBC Press.Google Scholar
Parliament of Canada. 2015. “House of Commons Committees.” http://www.parl.gc.ca/committeebusiness/aboutcommittees.aspx (November 26, 2015).Google Scholar
Penner, Erin, Blidook, Kelly and Soroka, Stuart N.. 2006. “Legislative Priorities and Public Opinion: Representation of Partisan Agendas in the Canadian House of Commons.” Journal of European Public Policy 13 (7): 1006–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Russell, Peter H. 2004. “A Parliamentary Approach to Reforming the Process of Filling Vacancies on the Supreme Court of Canada.” Brief to the Standing Committee on Justice, Human Rights, Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness. Ottawa: Parliament of Canada, March 23.Google Scholar
Rutkus, Denis Steven. 2005. “Proper Scope of Questioning of Supreme Court Nominees: The Current Debate.” Washington DC: Library of Congress.Google Scholar
Rutkus, Denis Steven and Bearden, Maureen. 2006. “Supreme Court Nominations, 1789–2005: Actions by the Senate, the Judiciary Committee, and the President.” Washington DC: Library of Congress.Google Scholar
Rutkus, Denis Steven and Bearden, Maureen. 2009. “Supreme Court Nominations, 1789–2009: Actions by the Senate, the Judiciary Committee, and the President.” Washington DC: Library of Congress.Google Scholar
Segal, Jeffrey Allan and Spaeth, Harold J.. 2002. The Supreme Court and the Attitudinal Model Revisited. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shetreet, Shimon and Turenne, Sophie, eds. 2013. Judges on Trial: The Independence and Accountability of the English Judiciary. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sossin, Lorne. 2005. “Judicial Appointments: Law Professors Have Their Say.” The Lawyers Weekly (Markham ON), November 18.Google Scholar
Williams, Margaret and Baum, Lawrence. 2006. “Supreme Court Nominees before the Senate Judiciary Committee.” Judicature 90 (2): 73–80.Google Scholar
Ziegel, Jacob. 1999. “Merit Selection and Democratization of Appointments to the Supreme Court of Canada.” In Choices: Courts and Legislatures, ed. Russell, Peter H. and Howe, Paul. Calgary: IRPP.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Lawlor and Crandall supplementary material

Lawlor and Crandall supplementary material 1

Download Lawlor and Crandall supplementary material(File)
File 127.5 KB