Category: Court

Introduction

The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Daubert (1993) marks the importance of reasoning in cases involving scientific evidence. Prior to this decision, the jury accepted any evidence presented in combination with the Frye test. This test was used as a standard for determining the admissibility of scientific evidence in Federal courts. The precedent is based on the concept of “reasoning or methodology” which means that in outlining the criteria that might be used to determine the scientific validity of the evidence. Thesis In spite of the advantages and opportunities proposed by the Daubert decision, it creates a lot of challenges for forensic science and DNA testing in particular.

Main text

According to the Daubert decision, the Supreme Court took a broad view of “science ” based on the data and reasoning facts considered as expert evidence. The expert evidence is a critical component of many trials, and before the Daubert decision juries were influenced by expert evidence that is not based on a scientific knowledge (Dixon and Gill 2). The Daubert decision assigns the role of federal judges as “gatekeepers” and introduced new standards for evidence testing. The main criteria that judges have to consider involve:

1. whether a theory or methodology can be (and has been) tested;
2. whether it has been subjected to peer review and publication;
3. whether it has been subjected to peer review and publication,
4. the known or potential rate of error;
5. the existence and maintenance of standards controlling the technique’s operation;
6. whether it is generally accepted in the scientific community (Dixon and Gill 3).

In spite evident benefits and opportunities of the new approach, it creates numerous challenges for forensic science and DNA testing. Following Kaestle et al (2006) Daubet “sets a more “lenient” threshold for admissibility than the other; both require a pretrial showing of scientific validity. The principal distinction between the two lies in the question, “who decides the issue of scientific validity” (53).

Taking into account DNA identification technique, it is possible to say that within species, the number of similarities is far greater than the number of differences, but because of the uniqueness of DNA, theoretically, no two people are exactly the same, save for identical twins. In theory, from organism to organism, the sequence in which molecules form the DNA chain differs. Both the White and the Jeffreys methods for using polymorphic strands as an identifying marker—now the Lifecodes DNA-Print and the Cellmark DNA Fingerprint, respectively— individualize by using length polymorphism. This technique is called restriction fragment length polymorphism (RFLP) (Watson and Witkowski 5).

To do this, a relatively large segment of pure DNA must be extracted from each biological specimen (Cheng 1263). The DNA in each person is the same in every cell, and the polymorphic piece of the chain can be obtained from any tissue sample and from many body fluids. The main problem for DNA evidence is that the jury lacks scientific knowledge and skills necessary for careful and deep analysis of the facts presented to the court. Following Kaestle et al (2006)

Under Frye, the trial court defers to the opinions of scientists as to whether a particular scientific advancement is valid. For the reasons given in Part III, this Article submits that forensic DNA does not yet have a strong enough scientific standard for admissibility, and courts should take great care prior to admitting such evidence” (63).

In contrast to many other method, DNA proposes great opportunities to detect a person and present evidence to the jury. For instance, today forensic scientists see genetic fingerprinting as a far more powerful tool than conventional serology, in which blood, semen, saliva, and other body fluids can be tested for the presence of certain blood-group factors, such as the simplest ABO, or Rh-negative/positive typing, or protein markers (Watson and Witkiwski 23). The main challenge is that the court could not objectively consider the scientific validity of the evidence (Cheng 1263).

In a criminal investigation—usually a rape or murder—the specimens usually are blood from the victim, blood from the accused, and the best two or three specimens from the crime scene, such as a bloodstained item of clothing the accused was wearing, or a semen stain or swab in the case of a rape. If the DNA print of the sample matches the print of the accused’s blood, scientists from the DNA-typing laboratories are willing to testify that the chances of the DNA on the sample coming from the accused are very great (Janus and Prentky 1443).

These scientists argue that the chances are usually one in millions or billions that two individuals would present an identical DNA print; the odds vary, depending on the population in question because there are racial and gender differences in polymorphic strands, and various features are more common or less so. The main problem for the jury is that this population statistic theory has been called into question (Cheng 1263; Watson and Witkowski 76).

The other challenge created by the Daubert decision is that DNA evidence is usually admitted against a defendant, and the jury receives a chance to reject its scientific validity. Kaestle et al (2006) explain that “the proffered mtDNA inclusion statistics that will be reported to the jury are scientifically unsound or are not generally accepted in the scientific community. Most courts are simply unaware of the unique aspects of mtDNA typing as compared to nDNA typing, and have not been exposed to the scientific literature discussing the problems with the SWGDAM database” (64).

Allen (1994) and Beyea and Berger (2001) admit that a DNA test determines whether certain polymorphic DNA segments—called alleles—are present in a sample. This produces a much less specific identification of the DNA because large numbers of people may have any one particular allele present in their DNA. By probing for a large number of alleles, however, it is possible to say that a DNA sample came from one particular individual out of 10,000 or 100,000.

Although saying that a particular DNA print may be replicated in 1 in 100,000 individuals within a certain population is by no means saying that the print is unique, when combined with other evidence, it can be a powerful piece of a prosecution’s case ((Watson and Witkowski 32). The technique is especially useful when looking at small DNA samples. Because DNA deteriorates so rapidly, it is not always possible to get a large enough sample to do meaningful testing using the Cellmark or Lifecodes techniques.

These probes bind to different spots when that particular allele is present. So when a forensic serologist—the crime-lab technician who deals with blood samples—testifies that the defendant has a particular blood type and that this blood type is found in a certain percentage of the population, jurors at least can understand the numbers, even though they may not understand the particulars of how those population statistics are derived. Mellon underlines that “Daubert’s stricter standards have caused many Frye jurisdictions to take the trial court’s gatekeeper role more seriously, resulting in greater attention to indicia of reliability traditionally outside Frye’s scope of inquiry” (1097).

The challenge created by the Daubert decision is that DNA technology is unfamiliar, complex, and novel to jurors, however, and the population statistics on which DNA-typing scientists base their findings of probability also are far more complex. The DNA-Print technology used by Lifecodes, the DNA Fingerprint technology used by Cellmark, and the other particular techniques used by the FBI and other forensic labs that do DNA typing are all composites—a number of probes with various statistical probabilities, that then must be multiplied to produce a final statistical probability (Watson and Witkowski 83).

The chance of any one particular probe showing a print at a certain location on the autoradiograph usually is one in thousands and varies among different subpopulations, based on race, ethnicity, and gender (Janus and Prentky 1443).

In addition, a state assembly committee held hearings on whether to legislate regulations of the practice. Defense attorneys argued that while DNA typing is a valid technique in theory, there is no legislated quality control over the commercial laboratories conducting the tests. They noted that the state health department had not yet set quality-assurance standards for DNA typing as a diagnostic tool, which is a technique identical to forensic DNA typing. the experts did not put the blame on Lifecodes, but rather on the adversarial nature of the legal system and its inability to deal effectively with complex science as well as on themselves as leaders in the scientific community for not pushing harder for universal standards in forensic use of the technique (Watson and Witkiwski 82).

In addition to criticizing sloppy laboratory techniques, researchers also have questioned the assumptions about population genetics that led the expert witnesses from the commercial labs to testify that the chance of a person other than the defendant matching the DNA-typing test is one in hundreds of millions or even one in billions (Kaestle and Kittles 53). For instance, Judge Sheindlin’s ruling in the Castro case shows a level of distinction between generally accepted scientific practice and common forensic-science practice not always adhered to in Frye hearings.

Too often, argues Bert Black, an attorney in Baltimore, judges accept the expertise of forensic -lab technicians and their arguments about the ability of their techniques to meet the requirements of general scientific acceptance. Mellon underlines that “The data produced by the developmental validation studies would reveal the kit’s ability to distinguish between true results of the DNA analysis and results that reflect environmental degradation” (1097).

Summary

In sum, the Daubert decision proposes great opportunities for the jury but puts many limitations of forensic identification techniques. DNA allows identifying several genetic markers from a single crime-scene blood sample by separating the proteins using electrophoresis and sequentially staining the sample for different tests. Thus, DNA evidence does not always accepted by the jury and the court. By showing that statistical analysis always is used to determine the probability that the evidence is what an expert asserts it to be, the prosecution could get a judge to allow a new scientific technique to be used and analyzed statistically.

Works Cited Page

Allen, R. J., Expertise and the Daubert Decision. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 84 (1994), 1157-1175.

Beyea, J., Berger, D. Scientific Misconceptions among Daubert Gatekeepers: The Need for Reform of Expert Review Procedures. Law and Contemporary Problems 64 (2001), 327.

Cheng, E. K. Independent Judicial Research in the Daubert Age. Duke Law Journal, 56 (2007), 1263.

Dixon, L. Gill, B., Changes in the Standards for Admitting Expert Evidence in Federal Civil Cases since the Daubert Decision. Rand Institute for Social Justice, 2001.

Janus, E. S., Prentky, R. A. Forensic Use of Actuarial Risk Assessment with Sex Offenders: Accuracy, Admissibility and Accountability. American Criminal Law Review 40 (2003), 1443.

Kaestle, F.A., Kittles, R.A., Roth, A.L., Ungvarsky, D.J. Database Limitations on the Evidentiary Value of Forensic Mitochondrial DNA Evidence. American Criminal Law Review 43 (2006), 53-76.

Mellon, J. N. Manufacturing Convictions: Why Defendants Are Entitled to the Data Underlying Forensic DNA Kits. Duke Law Journal 51 (2001), 1097.

Watson, J. D., Witkiwski, J. A. DNA: Forensic and Legal Applications. Wiley-Interscience; 2004.

Introduction

The survival of any civilization depends on the establishment of laws of conduct and the following of the same by all the members of the society. Even so, not all members of the society follow the law on their own accord and as such, there is need for a Justice System which serves both as an instrument for retribution and deterrence.

There are two prominent agents employed by the criminal justice system. They are: police officers who are charged with enforcement of the criminal laws and prevention of crime in their respective jurisdictions and the court systems which play a vital role by administering justice. Courts are charged with ensuring that the criminal justice process runs its course from the arrest stage through to the sentencing.

The efficiency of the criminal justice system of a country has huge significance since a nation’s justice system has a direct bearing on the perceived legitimacy of a government by its people. As such, governments are always looking for ways to make the system more effective by increasing its accuracy rates. One of the means proposed for increasing the accuracy of the investigative process in crime fighting is the use of polygraph tests.

This device has captured the imagination of the nation and some courts have considered making evidence from polygraph tests admissible to court. This paper argues that polygraph evidence should not be admissible in federal courts due to the low accuracy levels of the test. The paper shall reinforce this claim by use of empirical literature that analyses the accuracy of the polygraph in lie detection.

Assumptions Underlying Polygraph Use

The polygraph test was invented by John Reid and the most widely used format is known as the comparison question test (CQT). CQT is generally applicable in criminal investigations as well as security screening by federal actors (Ben-Shakhar, 2002). Polygraph specialists argue that deception can be detected through the use of a science oriented interview technique which is known as “polygraphic examination”.

The fundamental assumption in polygraph tests is that “polygrapher can detect deception in an individual by assessing his/her physiological reactions to questions relating to the crime or other critical events of interest” (Furedy & Heslegrave, 1991, p.58). The important part of the polygraph test is the recording and measuring of the subtle changes in physiological functions that occur when a person lies.

The assumption here is that this physiological reactions are involuntary meaning that people are neither aware of the apparent changes and not can they reproduce them at will if they wanted to.

The physiological measures that are recorded in a polygraph examination are typically respiration, heart beat, blood pressure and sweating. The records are taken continuously as the subject is asked a series of questions that are related to the matter under investigation.

Bell and Grubin (2010) reveal that in the CQT, the basic assumption is that the innocent examinee will exhibit higher physiological arousal to the comparison questions about past misdeeds as compared to questions about the incident which is currently under investigation. On the other hand, the guilty examinee will exhibit higher arousal to questions about the incident that is the basis of the current investigation. Strong physiological reactions to the relevant questions are marked out to indicate deception on the part of the subject.

There are also some assumptions which are taken when interpreting the polygraph tests. To begin with, it is assumed that innocent participants will be more aroused by questions concerning comparison items. Several authors have questioned this assumption since it is also highly likely that the relevant item may be of strong concern to the innocent subject as well (Bell & Grubin, 2010; Fiedler, Schmid, & Stahl, 2002; Furedy, 1996; Iacono, 2000; Lykken, 1983).

Many critics of CQT point out that there is no explainable reason why physiological activity should increase or decrease when a person tells the truth. This rationale is more of an assumption than a fact that can be demonstrated.

Accuracy of the Polygraph

The accuracy of the polygraph test is not absolute and a recent review on the accuracy rates of what was considered high-quality laboratory studies indicated that for guilty subjects, the accuracy ranged from 53% to 100% while for innocent subjects, the accuracy ranged between 75% and 90% (Raskin & Honts, 2002). The findings from this study concluded that specific-incident polygraph tests (which is what investigators use) result in detection rates that are higher than chance but significantly less than perfect.

Another issue concerning polygraph test accuracy is the lack of standardization. This presents a major hindrance to asserting the validity of the CQT is that there is no standardized manner of administering the test. In the specific incident polygraph test, the analyzer is required to come up with the interview questions that will be used in the test.

The questions have a huge bearing on the accuracy of results as studies reveal that well structured questions increase accuracy while poorly structured questions decrease accuracy rates (Grubin & Bell, 2010). Due to this lack of standardization, the validity of tests can not be determined through scientific experimentation. The examiner may therefore influence the outcomes of the test due to its subjective nature.

A fundamental flaw in the polygraph test as articulated by Bell and Grubin (2010, p.54) is that “there is no psychological theory that uniquely ties physiological arousal, as measured by the polygraph, to deception”. Grubin and Bell (2010)l asserts that despite claims to the contrary, the techniques and methods used in polygraphy have changed very little since its invention in the early 1900s.

The supposed computerization of the polygraph has done little to change the theory and methodology utilized in polygraph tests. Attempts at explaining physiological detection of deception as a factor of guilt have up to this point been unsuccessful and the psychological explanations offered up to this point are unconvincing.

Research findings regarding the basic science behind polygraphy technique reveal that the theoretical rationale of the technique is at best very weak. More specifically, findings from the National Research Council demonstrate that polygraphs can not “differentiate fear, arousal, or other emotional states that are triggered in response to relevant or comparison questions” (National Research Council, 2003, p.13).

Considering the fact that the polygraph test relies primarily on these physiological reactions to ascertain truth or falsehood, the lack of ability to differentiate greatly undermines the accuracy of CQT. Furedy and Heslegrave (1991) note that part of the problem that polygraphs are subject to is in differentiating the subtle pschological processes that are produced from telling the truth of lying.

Inter-rater reliability of the polygraph test varies significantly across studies. Test-retest reliability is the “ability of a test to measure a trait that is supposed to be stable over time” (Maschke & Scalabrini, 2005). Scientific methods are characterized by high measures of retest reliability and high rates of accuracy across various independent tests.

Using a sample of mock crime studies, Kircher, Horowitz and Raskin (1988) found that the accuracy levels ranged from 65% to 100%. Bell and Grubin (2010) propose that the variance in accuracy of the polygraph test as is evident from studies is as a result of the differences in the subjects, varying levels of incentives for passing the test and the specific method of determining guilt or innocence that is used by the professional.

The accuracy of the polygraph test is further compromised by the less subtle physiological changes that result from factors that are external to truth or lies such as anger and anxiety to name but a few.

For instance, if the subject is feeling pressured to pass the test or is made anxious by the nature of questions asked, he will exhibit anxiety which will produced increased physiological activity regardless of his truthfulness or falseness in answering the questions (Furedy & Heslegrave, 1991). Since the polygraph test does not take into consideration the many other external variables that may result in physiological activity, the results will be flawed.

It is possible that the validity of polygraph testing may be increased in future following advances being made in functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI). Grubin and Bell (2010) state that fMRI will provide the means with which to explore and better understand the correlation of polygraph testing with psycho physiological. By so doing, a scientifically sound basis for the operation of the polygraph will be found. With this, repeatability may be assured and hence the validity of the test. Until such advances are made, the accuracy of the polygraph test remains wanting.

Discussion

The appeal of a machine or technology that purports to detect deception is great and for hundreds of years, man has been searching for such a device. Bell and Grubin (2010) declare that while research on the polygraph test has been conducted since the onset of the 20th century, it is still unclear as to what extent polygraphy is a valid means for detecting deception. While proponents of CQT state that the results from the test are significantly higher than chance, the variance in accuracy acts as a major obstacle for adopting CQT as evidence in court rooms.

A survey by Iacono and Lykken (1997) revealed that “the CQT can be beaten by augmenting one’s response to the control questions”. This can have a number of negative impacts in criminal justice. To begin with, the investigating officers can be steered away from a criminal who has allegedly passed the test.

If the evidence from the test is presented to a court of law, it may lead to the acquittal of a guilty party who used false means to beat the test. In either case, the efficiency of the criminal justice system is hindered by reliance on the polygraph test. Maschke and Scalabrini (2005) ominously state that it is unsafe to assume that everyone who passes a polygraph test has told the truth.

In countries where results of a polygraphic examination are admissible evidence in courts of law, the polygrapher is viewed as an expert witness who determines whether the suspect has been truthful or deceptive (Furedy & Heslegrave, 1991). The evidence presented on the strength of the polygraph has a huge bearing on the judgment passed due to the doctrine of polygraphic infallibility. Furedy and Heslegrave (1991) reveal that the perceived guilt of an accused person in court may be heightened as a result of the presentation of polygraphic evidence before the judge and jury..

While the polygraph does present itself as a novel tool for crime fighting, the role played by the criminal justice system is imperative for the well being of the society and the fairness of the system must be unquestionable. As has been seen in this paper, the polygraph is not absolute and if it is used in the court system, the fairness of the court may be compromised.

Even so, the polygraph test is useful in assisting the investigating officer to decide on the direction that the investigation should take. Therefore, the polygraph test should be used by investigators to aid in their investigation efforts but it should be barred from the court rooms.

Conclusion

This paper argues that polygraph evidence should not be admissible in federal courts. To reinforce this assertion, the paper has demonstrated the inherent flaws that exist in polygraph tests. The paper has began by articulated the various assumptions that are taken in the use of the polygraph.

This paper has demonstrated that the theory underlying polygraph tests if fundamentally flawed and the accuracy and validity of these technique is varies from chance to perfection hence making polygraph tests scientifically unsound.

The paper has also noted that there are many factors that influence the accuracy of polygraph tests. From these revelations, it can be authoritatively stated that the accuracy level of polygraph tests falls below the acceptable level for the court systems. Polygraph evidence should therefore stay out of our court rooms until such a time that the validity of this technique is increased and the accuracy made absolute.

References

Bell, B.G., & Grubin, D. (2010). “Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging may promote theoretical understanding of the Polygraph Test”. The Journal of Forensic Psychiatry & Psychology Vol. 21, No. 1, February 2010, 52–65

Ben-Shakhar, G. (2002). A Critical Review of The Control Question Test. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Furedy, J.J., & Heslegrave, R. J. (1991). “The Forensic Use of the Polygraph: A Psychophysiological Analysis of Current Trends And Future Prospects”. Advances in Psychophysiology, Volume 4, pages 157-189.

Iacono, W.G., & Lykken, D.T. (1997) “The Validity of the Lie Detector: Two Surveys of Scientific Opinion,” Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 82 (1997), No. 3, pp. 426–33. Abstract: Kircher, J.C., Horowitz, S.W., & Raskin, D.C. (1988). “Meta-analysis of mock crime studies of the control question polygraph technique”. Law and Human Behavior, 12, 79–90.s Maschke, W.G., & Scalabrini. (2005). The Lie Behind the Lie Detector. AntiPolygraph Organization.

National Research Council. (2003). The Polygraph and Lie Detection. Committee to Review the Scientific Evidence on the Polygraph. Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

Raskin, D.C., & Honts, C.R. (2002). The Comparison Question Test. San Diego, CA: Academic Pres

Introduction

The Australian High Court is the highest independent judicial arm of the government, which is also a significant feature of Australia’s liberal-democratic governance (Patapan, 2010, p. 167; Banks, 2007, p. 16).

The main functions of this court include interpreting and applying the Australian constitution, solving cases regarding the federal system of governance such as instances where the constitutional validity of the laws is challenged, and officiating appeal cases (Singleton et al., 2009, p.64).

However, in the recent past, there have been arguments over the court’s role in the shifting balance of power, which tends to favor the Commonwealth.

As a result, there is the need to look into the factors underlying this shift in the balance of power and the relevant constitutional interpretations since the initial constitution provided for the preservation of the balance of power between the commonwealth and the states (Singleton et al., 2009, p.64).

To this end, the essay will look at the role of the high court in interpreting the wording of the Australian constitution by considering the Engineers case (Amalgamated Society of Engineers Vs Adelaide Steamship Co. Ltd) of 1920.

In addition, this essay aims at illustrating the High Court’s role as a political institution of governance through considering the court’s input in supporting the legislation regarding income tax, which was enacted by the Commonwealth in 1942.

Overall, the two cases will serve as examples of the roles played by the high court in interpreting the Australian constitution, and acting as a political institution in the Australian system of governance.

The role of the High Court in interpreting the laws

Considering that all the constitutional rights of appeal bestowed upon the Privy Council have been abolished in the recent past, it is certain that the Australian constitution allows the High Court to interpret the laws (Singleton et al., 2009, p.65).

This implies that all the constitutional cases including appeals originating from different jurisdictions, which bear a greater political significance to the federal government, are referred to the High Court.

Here, it is worth noting that most constitutional cases are based on disagreements involving the balance of power between the federal and the state governments particularly in matters dealing with trade, banking, and arbitrations (Singleton et al., 2009, p. 65; Wiltshire, 2008, p. 31).

Thus, the decisions made by the High Court regarding these cases can have far-reaching implications since they form the framework for decisions made by other courts several years later.

Accordingly, since its inception, the High court’s rulings have been centered on controlling the federal powers, giving wider interpretations of the federal powers, sustaining the role played by the Commonwealth in governance without bias, and as can be noted from the recent developments, the High Court is engaged in providing additional interpretations of the powers held by the federal government (Ward & Stewart, 2010, p. 105).

However, of particular interest in this respect is the court’s role in the Engineers case whereby it was decided that the federal adjudication powers as provided in section 51(xxxv) of the constitution could also apply in other parts of the country including Western Australia (Singleton et al., 2009, p. 66; Ward & Stewart, 2010, p. 115).

Additionally, regarding the Engineers case, the High Court is said to have given the Commonwealth the full control over worker’s wages at the national level.

In so doing, the court can be regarded to as playing the role of reshaping the constitutional interpretations put forward in 1901, and thus, providing a framework upon which the disagreements arising between the Commonwealth and the States can be solved.

Here, the court played the role of a constitutional adjudicator considering that despite enlarging the legislative powers of the Commonwealth on one hand, it also confined these powers on the other hand.

Further, it is to be noted that the majority of the court was of the idea that the interpretation of the constitution should be based on its original wording, and not on implied prohibitions or implied immunity, which were two major doctrines used by the courts in the early 1900s (Ward & Stewart, 2010, p. 119).

Therefore, by giving the constitution its normal word meaning, the High Court extended the powers of the Commonwealth to cover some aspects, which were initially prohibited by interpreting the laws on the basis of the drafters’ wishful meanings of the constitutional wording.

However, it should be noted that this broader interpretation of the laws was not meant to give the federal government an upper hand, but it served to check almost all aspects of governance, and to maintain the balance of power between the federal and state governments (Wiltshire, 2008, p. 35).

The role of the High Court as a political institution

If we had to examine what the drafters of the Australian constitution had in mind, it is certain that they wanted to develop the US-system of the judiciary, which performs various functions such as the federal judicial review (Banks, 2007, p. 18).

Here, the role played by the High Court entails examining the laws made in both the Commonwealth and the State legislatures in order to ensure that they fall within the provisions of the constitution.

Accordingly, considering that disputes could arise between the federal and state governments such as the one discussed above, there is the paramount need to have a mediator who should be impartial and unconcerned with issues raised by either party in order for justice to be served.

This role could not fit any institution apart from the Australian High Court. As a result, the High Court can be regarded to as an arbiter of federalism or an advocate of the Australian constitution (Patapan, 2010, p.168).

It then follows that the decisions made by the High Court will have extensive political implications. For instance, during the war-time in 1942, the federal government came up with a legislation meant to control the overall income tax, a move which was challenged in court by the state governments (Singleton et al., 2009, p. 169).

In this constitutional conflict, the High Court ruled in favor of the federal government, and thus gave the Commonwealth the authority to implement uniform taxation at the national level. This implied that the state governments could not impose their own taxes outside those implemented by the Commonwealth.

Besides, it is to be noted that the court also gave a broader meaning of section 90, which entails the Excise, and thus limiting the taxation power of the Commonwealth in some aspects.

These decisions of the court point to the fact that it plays a political role in that the High Court has the power to look into the actions of both the legislature and the executive in order to determine whether those actions fall within the exact meaning of the constitution.

Furthermore, the case shows instances where the High Court can annul some actions of the executive, which may not be based on proper interpretation of the constitution.

Moreover, this case is one of many instances where the High Court came in to help solve constitutional conflicts arising from wrong interpretation of the constitution or obscure laws (Ward & Stewart, 2010, p. 105).

Here, it is also important to note that the High Court was acting purely within its constitutional mandate, which dictates that such conflicts be treated as legal questions irrespective of the impending political consequences. Overall, the court’s decisions show that the High Court judges understand their role in the political sphere and judicial review (Patapan, 2010, p. 169).

References List

Banks, R 2007, Hot topics: legal issues in plain language, Legal Information Access Centre, Australia.

Patapan, H 2010, High court, (Insert the publisher and the Town for the book you scanned for me).

Singleton et al. 2009, High court, (Insert the publisher and the Town for the book that you scanned for me).

Ward, T & Stewart, R 2010, Politics one (4^th ed), Palgrave MacMillan, Australia.

Wiltshire, K 2008, ‘Australian federalism: the business perspective’, The University of New South Wales Law Journal, vol. 31, no. 2, pp. 31-45.

Introduction

Supreme Court nominees evade giving direct answers to statutory performance and other legal issues (Stolberg). This has been a common criticism that Supreme Court nominees stand before qualifying the level. Senators from both sides of the authority either keep such parties or devise propaganda aiming to reduce their votes and chances of qualification. Conversely, the nominees have developed a variety of evasive techniques to these criticisms, and so open varied diverging responses.

The Supreme Court (SC)

In the US, this is the highest judicial body, which leads the federal judiciary. It comprises of the chief justice of the US and 8 associate justices nominated by the president and confirmed by the senate. Once appointed, they enjoy life tenure, which may only be terminated through death, retirement, or resignation.

Criticism of Supreme Court nominees

SC nominees have always been condemned because of their previous statements and evasiveness of issues. Democrats and republicans have their own tactics to advance viewpoints to qualify nominees. The fitness of the candidate to deliver in the system is scrutinized, often based on responses to legal and statutory interpretations.

Senate republicans reject the ratification of Kagan to the bench, analyzing her dedication to upholding the constitution and whether her countenance would prejudice decisions. They question whether she would be controlled by, or run the constitution. Some argued that she does not satisfy the high standards of the station and did not take liberal commitment to the set laws.

She has on no account been an arbitrator and thus has no relevant experience in the field. Consequently, she may continue the list of judges who craft their own laws rather than interpreting the outlined principles. She also provides lukewarm support for some amendments and her tactics which tend towards the Clinton administration (Bacon).

Fortunately for Kagan, the political situation has not been as active because the oil spill and the Afghanistan war have eclipsed her nomination. Previous nominees underwent more detailed analysis. Preceding candidates have been criticized for issues such as their lack of understanding or short-time service in order occupations (Rutkus).

For example, Clarence Thomas had only served as a judge for less than a year neither was she involved in legal writings. Some groups did not support his stance on affirmative action, believing his decisions would be biased on faith. Other nominees have received criticism for their deeply held religious affiliations.

Concern to Senators

The determination of senators to aid the general welfare of the American people would be constrained if justice may be biased. Senators thus focus their issues mainly on the credentials of the nominee understanding the law. Some of the values that these nominees hold may influence their opinions on the bench (Bacon). Some democrats, however, support her, stating that she is an ardent follower of the constitution.

There are senators who vote in nominees based on their proximity to the senator’s constituents. When these nominees are not adequately qualified or reasonably distant, then the senators may make decisions, hugely depending on the current political situation or the views of the president.

Others are undecided on how they should vote, thus this questioning is necessary to make reasonable decisions based on the credibility of the nominee (Rutkus). The questions provide facts on how well the nominee understands the structure and judicial roles, credentials and reputation. They discover how the nominee, if appointed, would upset the stability of the court. Other senators take that opportunity to ask questions which would lead public awareness to concerns in the society or to identify themselves with the issues.

Evasiveness by nominees

When Hatch questioned Kagan about the ban on abortion she gave distant responses, which left the republican troubled. SC nominees have traditionally evaded responses to specific questions so that they may not take sides or expose their flaws (Bacon). On abortion, she said the court prioritized the health of the mother.

Kagan, who has both worked with Barrack and Clinton, evaded giving an answer to a republican who questioned her viewpoint on whether the system had favored some institutions in contemporary declarations. She said she did not embody the present court and hoped that one day she would join it, amidst laughter and characterization ‘a real politician’ (Mozgovaya).

Nominees may avoid some questions which may eventually occur later in their court rulings. A response may expose their perspective on delicate issues and thus the inequality on decision making may be noted. Some senators who may have otherwise to vote on the nominee’s favor may be displeased by some of their responses, and thus affect their chances of nomination in jeopardy. Alito and Ginsburg, for example, evaded some question, citing that they may appear in the court at some later date (Rutkus).

Nominees’ responses to criticisms and their opinions

Most of the opinions held by the nominees are neutral, usually to prevent further evaluation. Kagan, for example, answered critics by stating that though she admires what Aharon Barak did for Israel, she would not necessarily follow his style of judicial activism.

She says that she is more engrossed in politics than legal precedent, promising that her judgment would be based solely on the constitution (Mozgovaya). Responding to republican critics, she added that her governing would be, must be, and have to be different from decision making. Asked whether she would support the president’s agenda, she said it was not her idea of the job.

Roberts, who was criticized for his faithful personal beliefs, said his faith would not influence decision making; further adding that he would look at the law, and not religious texts in making rulings (Rutkus). He declined to endorse the statement of a former president who considered the severance of the state and the church to be unconditional.

The most valid approach

A wide range of candidates are first considered before the president settles on a nominee. The nominee is considered by a committee before going to the full senate, for evaluation. The senators are each given time to challenge the nominee on radical issues. One of the consistent issues in the senate has been the choice of questions for nominees appearing before the committee.

Whether to ask, and how detailed the questions should be regarding their personal opinions on legal and legal issues is debatable (Rutkus). My most logical approach would be considering their substantive stance on topics rather than their actual credentials or private principles. It is not compulsory to force nominees to give responses for every questions asked, as some responses may undermine the integrity of the judiciary.

Conclusion

Nominees must be subjected to some criticism in an effort to resolve their take on public issues. Some of their responses may be seen as prejudging a case, based on their current beliefs, as such topics may be presented as cases in the future. A nominee without any judicial experience subjection to legal issues is essential, to determine whether they are capable of making decisions based on the law, or they would exercise their personal beliefs.

Works Cited

Bacon, Perry. Senators query Supreme Court nominee Kagan. The Washington Post, 2010. Web.

Mozgovaya, Natasha. U.S. supreme court nominee Elana Kagan: Israel means a lot to me. 2010. Web.

Stolberg, Sheryl. Committee approves Kagan’s nomination to Supreme Court. The New York Times, 2010. Web.

Rutkus, Denis. Questioning Supreme Court Nominees about Their Views on Legal or Constitutional Issues: A Recurring Issue. Congressional Research Service. 2010. Web.

Madison’s article (2012) ‘As Supreme Court Reconvenes, Civil Rights Issues in the Fore’, discusses legal issues the Supreme Court needs to rule on after reconvening (p. 1). The court is about to reconvene with a lot of civil rights cases awaiting its determination. The civil rights cases which the court will rule on relate to race, election rights and homosexual rights.

The first case that the court will hear is the legality of affirmative action in admission of new students in higher learning institutions. The article argues that the way the court determines the case will affect future student admissions in universities and colleges. The affirmative action law compels institutions of higher learning to observe racial diversity when admitting new students.

The interpretation to be made by the court will have serious consequences for many higher education institutions. A narrow interpretation of the law would affect many small institutions. A broad interpretation would compel many educational institutions to reform their admission policies.

The case about the definition of marriage as upheld by the ‘Defense of Marriage Act’ is very sensitive. DOMA recognizes marriage between heterosexual couples and not same sex couples (Madison, 2012, p.1). The court will decide if this hinders same sex couples from enjoying state benefits and welfare programs.

The court will also rule on whether voters in a state can withdraw marriage rights enjoyed by same sex couples if the state constitution allows it. The court also needs to determine the legality of election laws in some states which require each voter to have a photo identity before being allowed to vote.

The Supreme Court will have to decide on the legality of these laws and their impact on voting rights. The court’s ruling could have a direct effect on Section 5 of the ‘Voting Rights Act’ in states where these election rules are still practiced. The author simplifies complex legal issues and presents them in a manner that makes it easy for readers to understand (Madison, 2012, p.1). The issues discussed by the author in the article have a direct impact on the lives of all American citizens.

Evaluation of the Article

The reveals the critical civil rights issues which the court needs to rule on and analyses their significance to the society. The issue of affirmative action in educational institutions is very sensitive to minority populations. Many higher education institutions in the country use race as part of their criteria during admissions.

This article shows how affirmative action is used to create racial equality and diversity in higher education institutions. Madison (2012) observes that the Supreme Court’s ruling is likely to have a big impact on how colleges in the country admit new students in future (p. 1).

Madison (2012) discusses issues related to same sex union couples and the legal rights accorded to them by the constitution (p.1). She focuses on the argument that the way DOMA defines marriage, denies same sex couples access to benefits and other state programs.

This is a sensitive matter because the Supreme Court has to rule on the constitutionality of the act. Same sex marriages have become more common in the past decade and several states recognize their legality. This ruling will influence how the federal government implements its family welfare programs across the country.

This is an election year and the voting laws in each state determine how citizens are going to cast their ballots. The issue of voters carrying a photo identity before being allowed to vote is very contentious. The ruling could alter the ‘Voting Rights Act of 1965’, which some critics argue denies a section of US citizens the right to vote because of their race.

Madison (2012) emphasizes that, Supreme Court rulings have a big impact on civil rights cases brought before it (p. 1). The biases in this article are limited to the opinions of various legal experts who share their thoughts on legal issues that await ruling by the Supreme Court. The article shows how government policies regarding various civil rights issues are likely to change based on the way the Supreme Court rules on these cases.

Resource Linkage

Larkin and Slattery (2012) confirm that the civil rights cases which are yet to be determined by the Supreme Court are very significant (p.1). The ‘Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin’ is controversial. A ruling in favor of the plaintiff would stop race being used as a criterion in college admissions to achieve racial diversity in student populations. The ruling on the Voting Rights Act of 1965 is also very sensitive to many black voters in southern states who view the requirement as discriminatory.

The interpretation the court will take on the constitutionality of DOMA will have an impact on the legality of same sex unions in the US. The rights enjoyed by same sex couples as stipulated under the constitution will be significantly affected by the determination of the case. It is important to note that the impending Supreme Court rulings will have a big impact on civil rights as understood by many people in the US.

References

Larkin, P. & Slattery, E. (2012). Overview of the Supreme Court’s October term, 2012. The Heritage Foundation Legal Memorandum. Web.

Madison, L. (2012). As Supreme Court reconvenes, civil rights issues in the fore. CBS News. Web.

The Supreme Court is a very important organ of the judiciary in the United States and other countries around the world. The Supreme Court plays a critical role in the interpretation of state laws and serves as the final court where appeals are determined. Apart from interpreting all the congressional enactments, the Supreme Court plays a significant role in the policy making process. The Supreme Court ensures that all policies and state statutes are formulated in accordance to the constitution.

All federal statutes must be interpreted and expounded by the Supreme Court to ensure that they do not violate the constitution. The rulings and decisions made by the Supreme Court are final and this demonstrates the high power that the court wields. The legislature and the executive arms of government are normally put in check by the Supreme Court by ensuring that they conform to the United States constitution.

The Congress and the president of the United States play a critical role in governance and policy making and can end up violating the constitution voluntarily or through misinterpretation. The Supreme Court has the power to dismiss the decisions made by other courts as long as it remains within its mandate. The policy making process is a very elaborate process that requires checks and balances. All policies should conform to the U.S constitution and anything contrary to that is a violation of the constitution.

The Supreme Court has the power to oversee policy formulation and implementation to ensure compliance with the constitution. Policy making is normally associated with political disputes and the Supreme Court comes in to solve the disputes through constitutional interpretation. The Supreme Court adopts other powers to ensure that it does not interfere with other arms of government. The Congress formulates policies which are supposed to be enforced by the president.

The Supreme Court only comes in when polices conflict with the constitution. The Supreme Court can request the Congress to make some amendments to a policy to ensure that it complies with constitutional requirements. The Supreme Court therefore plays an oversight role in the policy making process.

Constitutional interpretation is the fundamental role of the Supreme Court even if other stakeholders may have reservations. The Supreme Court applies the law in the resolution of various disputes and this is what determines national policies. The fact that the Supreme Court decisions and constitutional interpretations are final means there is no way the country can end up having unconstitutional policies.

Judicial review can only be conducted by the Supreme Court depending on the cases brought before it. All the laws and policies formulated by federal governments must be reviewed by the Supreme Court. Policy disputes between states are very common in the U.S and the Supreme Court plays a very important role in resolving such conflicts. It is the role of the Supreme Court to ensure all the laws and policies formulated at the federal level conform to the U.S constitution.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court plays an oversight role in policy formulation and implementation. The decisions made by the Supreme Court determine the majority of national policies.

The Supreme Court ensures that all the policies that are formulated by the central and federal governments do not violate the constitution. The Supreme Court has the jurisdiction to approve and dismiss policies based on constitutional interpretation. The Supreme Court is not meant to interfere with the functions of other arms of government but to guard the constitution.

According to the NHSC (2007), every State Supreme Court is composed of the Chief Justice and four associate justices who sit in Concord and is the state’s only appellate court.

The Supreme Court has jurisdiction to review appeals from the State trial courts and from many State administrative agencies with original jurisdiction to issue writs of certiorari, prohibition, habeas corpus, and other writs. It is the duty of the Supreme Court to correct errors in trial court proceedings, interpret case law and statutes, and the state and federal constitutions and administrators of the courts (NHSC, 2007).

Beginning January 2004, the Supreme Court has accepted the vast majority of appeals from the State’s trial courts that include the family division and the district, probate, and superior courts. A timely appeal from a final decision of a trial court is a “mandatory appeal,” automatically accepted by the court. A few exceptions are listed in the definition of “mandatory appeal” in Supreme Court Rule 3 where the parties generally are given the opportunity to submit a transcript of the lower court proceedings and to file written briefs. After the briefs have been filed, the Supreme Court decides whether the case should be scheduled for oral argument or decided on the briefs alone. The court then issues a final decision, which may be a brief order, an order with some explanation, or a full written opinion (NHSC, 2007).

Administrative appeals, interlocutory appeals and interlocutory transfers, petitions for original jurisdiction such as petitions for writs of habeas corpus, and appeals from the decisions of the trial courts in a few types of cases are “discretionary appeals,” of which the Supreme Court may decide, in its discretion, to refuse the cases for review. After acceptance of a discretionary appeal, it follows the same process as a mandatory appeal, i.e., preparation of a transcript, briefings, oral argument, if necessary, and final decision (NHSC, 2007).

The appeal process and procedure are set forth in the Supreme Court Rules and administrative appeals may often be governed by statutory requirements. It is important to review the Supreme Court Rules and applicable statutes in filing an appeal with the court (NHSC, 2007).

After reviewing a case, the court determines whether oral argument would be helpful in deciding the case and the case is then assigned to be heard by the full court or a three-justice panel (3JX). Cases generally involve fewer issues or issues in which the applicable law is settled. The short written decision which must be unanimous is issued in each case usually within two months of argument (NHSC, 2007).

Cases assigned to the full court are decided after oral argument by written opinion or an explanatory order and oral arguments are scheduled periodically throughout the year (NHSC, 2007).

Types of Cases

Cases from the superior court, the probate court, and the district courts are entered upon the filing of an interlocutory transfer without ruling, an interlocutory appeal with the ruling, or upon the filing of a notice of appeal after a decision on the merits. Likewise, cases from administrative agencies shall be entered upon the filing of an interlocutory transfer without ruling or upon the filing of an appeal by petition. Cases that request the Supreme Court to exercise its original jurisdiction are entered upon the filing of a petition. Cases entered from courts by reserved cases and bills of exceptions are entered by interlocutory transfers without ruling, by interlocutory appeals with the ruling, or by notices of appeal, as the cases may warrant. Cases entered from courts and administrative agencies by certification of questions of law are entered by interlocutory transfers without ruling. Cases entered by the Governor and Council or by either house of the legislature as requests for advisory opinions are entered as requests of the respective bodies (NHSC, 2007).

Procedural Rules

Docketing the Case: Filing the Record

1. In an appeal from a trial court decision on the merits pursuant to Rule 7, the party appealing shall pay the entry fee prescribed by the Supreme Court, unless differently provided by law. In an interlocutory appeal, the plaintiff shall pay the entry fee prescribed by the supreme court and the clerk of the trial court will provide a copy to the judge and master. In all criminal appeals and appeals from an administrative agency, the appealing party simultaneously files 1 copy of the notice of appeal with the attorney general (NHSC, 2007).
2. The court may upon motion waive payment of the entry fee in exceptional circumstances. In any criminal case where the defendant is indigent and wishes to have counsel appointed to represent him, a petition for assignment of counselor for continued assignment of counsel and supporting affidavit of indigency shall be filed in this court at the time of filing (NHSC, 2007).
3. A case may be docketed under the title given to it previously, or the supreme court may process and report the case under a new name or names.
4. If the moving party shall fail to cause timely docketing of the case or transmission of the record or to pay the entry fee if one is required, the case shall be dismissed.
5. Non-compliance with Supreme Court procedural rules may incur a person filing a case assessed of any postage or copying costs incurred by the clerk’s office in obtaining compliance with these procedural rules (NHSC, 2007).

Describe the process by which a bill becomes law

While the general process for making a bill into a law is described in the Constitution, the Constitution leaves most of the details to the people of the day, dictating just the overall picture. The first step is that a bill must pass both houses of Congress by a majority vote. After it has passed out of Congress, it is sent along to the President. If the President signs the bill, it becomes law (Mount, 2006).

However, if the President does not sign the bill, or specifically rejects the bill called a veto, the bill returns to Congress where it is voted on again. If both houses of Congress pass the bill again with a two-thirds majority, then the bill becomes law without the President’s signature. Called “overriding a veto”, this is quite rare because of the two-thirds majority requirement (Mount, 2006).

If the President takes no action at all, and ten days pass, not including Sundays, the bill becomes law without the President’s signature. But if Congress has adjourned before the ten days passes without a Presidential signature, the bill fails and is known as a pocket veto (Mount, 2006).

The process laid out in the Constitution is relatively complicated when it comes to vetoes, but pretty simple when it comes to approving a bill. But in reality, there is a lot more to law-making than these steps spelled out in a clause of the Constitution (Mount, 2006).

Submitting a Bill

Bills originate from several different sources, but primarily from individual members of Congress or might be brought to a member by a constituent or by a group of constituents. Likewise, a bill may be submitted to a member of Congress by one or more state legislatures, or the President or his administration might suggest a bill (Mount, 2006).

However it is brought to the attention of a member, it must be submitted for consideration by the member. In the House, Representatives need merely drop a copy of a bill into a bin specifically placed to receive new bills. In the Senate, the bill is given to a clerk at the President’s desk (Mount, 2006).

Committees

Both houses of Congress, the House, and the Senate are divided into large groups called Committees handling general topics in the nation’s business, like Finance or the Military, with most committees divided yet again into Subcommittees. Subcommittees are even more specialized than tackle Military Nuclear Weapons, and another on Military Pay. Bills concern specific topics like raising the minimum wage (Mount, 2006).

House Procedure

In the House, a bill approved by a committee is referred to the whole House and referred to the so-called Committee of the Whole consisting of all members of the House but with a much lower quorum requirement. Once in the Committee of the Whole, it is read and debated upon for a time. When the time for debate is up, a second reading is done where amendments, including undesirable ones called “poison pill”, to the bill may be offered, debated upon, and voted upon. Once the Committee of the Whole is done with the bill, it is referred back to the full House (Mount, 2006).

They can be voted upon en masse or one at a time of which two votes can happen – either a vote to recommit that send the bill back to the committee if approved, or a vote on the bill, as amended called a full vote. If a bill passes, it is organized and published and the House uses blue paper for approved bills(Mount, 2006).

Senate Procedure

When a bill is referred to the full Senate, it can take a simple voice of the Senate, and the bill either passes or fails. The amendment is possible even when the simple voice vote can be used but when consent for a voice vote is not available, the bill is placed on the calendar for review by the entire Senate at a later date (Mount, 2006).

If no objection is noted on the bill, each Senator has five minutes to speak where amendments may be offered. But if the objection was offered, then each Senator has the opportunity to speak on the bill for as long as he or she wishes, a delaying tactic, and an effective tool for stopping action on an item, or for forcing compromise on an item. After all, amendments are offered and voted upon, the bill is put forth for a vote (Mount, 2006).

Conference

After a bill leaves the House and the Senate, it must be checked the two versions of the bill are checked for any difference even as minor as punctuation, and the bill must be reconciled. The house in which the bill originated is given a copy of the bill with its differences. For minor changes, they might be accepted by the originating house with no debate but if changes are of a more substantial nature, a conference is called for where a number of representatives and a number of Senators meet to work out the differences in the two versions of the bill. The people in the conference committee are known as managers. Changes must be consistent with the bill itself.

On to the President

By the time the President officially sees the bill, it is either in accordance with his wishes or in defiance of them with the 10-day clock ticking. The President may sign the bill at any time after its deliverance and it becomes a law.

The Bill Becomes Law

The law is transmitted to the Archivist of the United States where he assigns the law a number, publishes the law on its own, as a pamphlet known as a slip law, a historical document in itself (Mount 2006). The law is also published in the United States Statutes at Large, a collection of all laws passed in any given Congress. And if a law affects the U.S. Code, it is added to the Code, striking out sections or clauses that a law removes, and adding new ones the law created. The U.S. Code is republished every six years (Mount, 2006).

Reference

New Hampshire Bar News. (2007). “Rules of the Supreme Court of the State of New Hampshire”. Hampshire Supreme Court, New Hampshire Bar News.

Mount, Steve. (2006). “Constitutional Topic: How a Bill Becomes a Law.” The US Constitution Online.

Introduction

The widening of the democratic space in the United States suffered various challenges regarding the limits of human rights and freedoms. Political scientists and other scholars argue that human rights and freedoms should have limits to ensure the privileges of an individual do not override those of others. The establishment of courts and judiciary system in the United States was aimed at restoring justice, equality and fairness (Neubauer and Fradella 9).

Today, the American judiciary system has a rich history of granting justice to deserving citizens and ensuring perpetrators and offenders are punished. The roles of the courts are not only limited to dispensing justice but also ensuring that the Constitution is interpreted properly. This paper examines the structure and functions of the structure of the Supreme Court of the United States as described in United States Courts.

Reasons for researching this topic

I believe that a government cannot work without a robust and effective judiciary system. The trial, appellate and supreme courts play an important role in interpreting the Constitution of the United States and guiding the government on important legal issues. The Constitution of the United States plays an important role in the implementation of a government’s manifesto and ensures that political leaders do not overstep their mandates in an attempt to influence public opinion (Howard 56).

I believe that it is important for people to understand how the Constitution works, the interpretation of various provisions and how the laws of the United States apply in real life scenarios. This topic is relevant in the modern American society since it helps citizens to understand their rights and what the Constitution states about various issues that affects them. In addition, most people do not know the structure and functions of various judicial organs and departments and this means that they rely heavily on the laymen’s knowledge to understand these aspects.

Relationship with Class modules

The chapter modules of this course describe the various functions of government organs and how they interrelate to ensure the people get proper and timely services. Therefore, researching on the United States’ Supreme Court system helps the individual to understand how this agency complements and supports the other functions of the state. For instance, individuals seeking justice always consult and seek services of the courts to ensure they are not denied their rights (Neubauer and Fradella 31).

This means that the approaches to understanding the functions of the courts are stated properly in this module and thus it becomes easy for the learner to understand the relationship between the course and this topic. Most people believe that there cannot be a state without a working judicial system. In addition, they prefer having a failed state but a healthy and working judicial system (Howard 69). This means that studying the functions of the judicial system enables the learner to focus on understanding how justice, proper interpretation of the law and the role of the court system in complimenting other state functions.

Appropriateness and feedback of the website

The website offers useful information about the structure and functions of the United States’ court system. This information is important to all individuals whether they have pending or determined court cases. The availability of information regarding the previous and ongoing court cases offers useful ideas on how individuals can determine the fate of their cases.

In addition, the structures of the judiciary as depicted in the website enables people to know where to seek assistance if they need any of the services offered. There are numerous simple ways of navigating through the website and this means that a person can easily find out any information from it. The website is designed to offer user-friendly assistance to both experienced and new visitors; therefore, anybody can look for and locate any information required provided it is available in the website’s database.

Works Cited

Howard, Woodford J. Courts of appeals in the federal judicial system: A study of the Second, Fifth, and District of Columbia Circuits. New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2014.

Neubauer, David and Henry Fradella. America’s courts and the criminal justice system. Boston: Cengage Learning, 2016. Print.

Brief summary

Despite the Supreme Court of Canada being the top governing institution in the country, many people do not understand its role. After its establishment, the court got little media attention until the establishment of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

With time, the court has shifted from addressing disputes to making major policies on matters affecting the country. Today, the court has significant influence in Canada’s social, political, economic, and cultural life.

According to Macfarlane, “the Supreme Court of Canada is a political institution and its justices are important political actors” (5). Macfarlane’s book analyzes how the ideas of the relevant duties and those of the court bind the judges to the Supreme Court.

Nonetheless, Macfarlane believes, “Judicial policy making is not an accidental by-product of the court’s adjudicative function…Rather it is a result of the justices’ determination that one set of legal rules is more socially beneficial than another” (5).

In compiling the book, Macfarlane focuses on numerous aspects of the Supreme Court of Canada. He focuses on aspects like the judicial behavior, the evolution of the court and its justices, the processes that lead to the court making crucial decisions as well as the decisions made by the court.

Moreover, he focuses on the court’s ability in policymaking and the perception of the public and the media towards the court.

Major issues

Macfarlane identifies numerous issues throughout his book. In the attempt to understand the judicial behavior, he introduces two opposing views regarding how the Supreme Court operates. He considers the positions both the legal scholars and political scientists take.

While the legal scholars view judges as objective and impartial arbiters, political scientists believe that law and legal explanations are intrinsically political.

In explaining the evolution of the Supreme Court of Canada, Macfarlane focuses on primary changes and trends in the justices’ understanding of their mandate and the mandate of the court. He posits that external political forces such as the Charter and the decisions the justices make have significantly altered the court.

In the focus on how the justices make their decisions, Macfarlane argues that ideology plays a significant role in shaping the decisions the justices make (56).

Macfarlane argues that the demand for the Supreme Court to be efficient contributes to its decisions. The pressure compromises the judicial discretion. Limited study on this area exists in the available scholarly literature.

Besides, Macfarlane claims that consensus, legal rules, and collegiality influence the decisions made by the justices. He further examines the collaboration and deliberation that lead to the court’s decisions. He highlights the extent to which a judge is allowed to work independently and in collaboration with others.

Macfarlane brings out the impact of a goal of unanimity on decisions made in the court. Further, Macfarlane examines the justices’ opinion regarding the function of the Supreme Court as a policy-making body.

He concludes, “Justices give surprisingly little consideration to the capacity issue, which in turn gives them wide latitude to decide such cases according to their personal policy preferences” (Macfarlane 135).

Credibility of the identified issues

In the attempt to explain the behavior of the justices to the Supreme Court of Canada, Macfarlane claims that while the legal scholars view judges as objective and impartial judges, political scientists believe that law and legal explanations are intrinsically political.

His arguments are based on various assumptions he makes regarding the law. Macfarlane comes up with a number of opinions as to what influences the decisions made by the judges, the scope to which legal processes and rules influence the decision-making and the temperament of judging in a broader perspective.

Nevertheless, each of the approaches he adopts to explain the judicial behavior is tapered and it exhibits numerous methodological problems.

Macfarlane asserts that external political forces like the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the decisions the judges make have significantly altered the court. To support his argument, he comes up with a clear picture of how the court has evolved over time.

For instance, Macfarlane identifies the impacts of the external political influence like the inclusion of the Charter on the legal doctrines. Moreover, he evaluates the decisions made by the judges themselves to determine how they continue affecting the Supreme Court.

He shows how the relaxation of the rules of justifiability, extension of the nature of evidence, and introduction of third party interveners has affected the decision-making process in the Supreme Court. He claims that all these changes have transformed the Supreme Court of Canada into a political and policy-driven institution.

Besides, Macfarlane analyzes how the judges have evolved. By explaining how the judges perceive their role, impartiality, and law, he gives readers an opportunity to have a robust understanding of the role of ideology in the decision making process in the Supreme Court.

To support his claim that ideologies contribute to the decisions made by the Judges of the Supreme Court of Canada, Macfarlane analyzes the perspectives and arguments the judges articulate when dealing with allegations that their ideologies contribute to their final judgments.

Therefore, he bases his assertions on how the judges defend their judgments. He claims that judges acknowledge that various characteristics like ideologies, gender, and background might influence their decisions.

Therefore, Macfarlane feels that people cannot understand how the supreme court is evolving without focusing on all factors that influence the court’s decision making process and how these factors keep on changing with time.

Macfarlane posits that one of the factors that make it hard to understand how the demand for the institutional efficiency contributes to courts’ decision is lack of enough scholarly literature on the subject matter.

He therefore analyzes the decisions the Supreme Court of Canada makes based on the call for the court to be efficient. To start with, he analyzes how the judges make their decisions regarding the cases as well as the factors that the judges consider when making their judgments.

Throughout the analysis, he associates the judgments that the justices make with the demand by the different parties for the court to be efficient in delivering its judgments. He shows that efficient service delivery takes the centre stage of all the activities undertaken within the Supreme Court of Canada.

Consensus, legal rules, and collegiality influence the decisions made by the justices. Macfarlane substantiates this argument by focusing on the level to which individual judges are allowed to work independently and in collaboration with others, as well, as how this aspect affects the decisions the court makes.

He offers an in-depth analysis of the activities that follow a court hearing like negotiations, drafting of reasons, approval, or snub of revision and their impacts on the final judgment.

While the majority of the scholarly articles focus on the creation of unanimous cases, Macfarlane focuses on the impacts, an objective of unanimity might have on decisions the Supreme Court makes.

Through the analysis of the Supreme Court’s Charter cases, Macfarlane asserts that judges pay little attention to capacity issue, a move that gives them the freedom to make decisions based on their individual policy preferences. He substantiates his allegations through the analysis of Charter cases that involve health policy.

Implications of the issues

The issues that Macfarlane raises in his study of the Supreme Court of Canada might have numerous implications. For decades, Canadians did not understand the role or duties of the Supreme Court.

Nevertheless, Macfarlane gives a clear picture of the court, how the judges make their decisions and the mandates of the court. One of the implications of the issues he raises is that they might affect the trust that the public has on the Supreme Court.

The claim that, at times judges make their judgment based on their ideologies may make the public feel that at times the court does not uphold the principle of impartiality in making its judgments. His explanation of the effects of external political forces on the Supreme Court might taunt the image of the court.

While many people perceive the court as independent and at the summit of the decision making hierarchy in Canada, his allegations show that there are external forces that influence the court in its decision making process and therefore the court is not autonomous as many people think.

Macfarlane identifies numerous areas that the existing scholarly literature regarding the Supreme Court of Canada has overlooked. Most of these areas are critical in understanding the court, its mandates, and evolution process.

Therefore, the issues he raises might trigger further studies on the Supreme Court, therefore, unraveling other mysteries about the court. Macfarlane posits that mot of the existing literature focus on the establishment of unanimous cases in the Supreme Court.

Hence, they do not enlighten the public on the meaning and quality of the judgments made by the Supreme Court.

The issues raised by Macfarlane would help the public to interpret the decisions made by the Supreme Court in terms of its meaning and quality, thus making an informed decision on the subsequent step to follow.

Many people would decide on whether to turn to the court or not based on their understanding of how the court makes its decision. Therefore, based on these issues, the number of people turning to the Supreme Court of Canada would increase or decrease based on the public perceptions about the court.

Credibility of the author’s arguments

Macfarlane chooses appropriate arguments in a selective manner to support his argument regarding the Supreme Court of Canada. He argues that the court makes judgment based in the nature of the matter at hand and existing discretions. This argument helps the public to understand how the court operates.

Macfarlane gives a brief story of two cases (Auton vs. British Columbia and Chaoulli vs. Quebec) that the Supreme Court of Canada addressed. The cases involve equality rights and they are heard on back-to-back days. These two cases help to show how the court operates.

Despite the court being at the summit of the decision-making hierarchy, Macfarlane asserts that it does consider factors like the discretion of the parties to the case in making its decisions.

By showing how the Supreme Court responded to the two cases, Macfarlane shows how the court makes its judgments based on the nature of the case at hand.

He argues that factors like statutory provisions, constitutional directives, and issues of precedence contribute to the decisions made by the judges in the Supreme Court.

Furthermore, Macfarlane helps the public to understand the Supreme Court by arguing that the judges to the court exercise some level of discretion since they mainly deal with matters of national importance. They address the cases that are not well defined or catered for by the existing laws.

However, this aspect does not imply that the judges to the Supreme Court have the power to make their judgments freely. Instead, they are required to operate under the doctrines of the lawful approach.

He sites the absence of such constraints in the decision made in the case involving Chaoulli vs. Quebec to support his assertion that some judges of the Supreme Court make judgments based on their individual policy preferences. The Judges’ attitudes or ideologies contribute to the decision the court makes.

Evidence given

Macfarlane uses numerous compelling evidences to support his arguments. One of the compelling evidences he uses in his argument is the case involving Chaoulli vs. Quebec. This evidence shows how ideologies and individual’s policy preferences contribute to the decision made in the Supreme Court.

Besides, he gives a comparison between Chaoulli vs. Quebec and Auton vs. British Columbia to show how the Supreme Court operates. The comparison reinforces his assertion that external forces like the Charter of Rights and Freedoms influence the decisions made in the Supreme Court.

Further, to answer the question of competence in making judgments in the Supreme Courts, Macfarlane gives evidence of friction between the judges in the Supreme Court.

According to Macfarlane, judges with vast experience in private practice consider it as time wasting when their colleagues with academic experience take time focusing on philosophical issues.

On the other hand, judges with an academic background and limited experience in private practice perceive the judges with experience in private practice as ignorant of critical philosophical and legal issues.

Macfarlane argues that the current increase in the number of judges with academic knowledge in the Supreme Court is because of the Court’s increasing propensity to override past judgments.

The main shortcoming of this evidence is that it operates on speculation. The court does not give the reason behind the recruitment of judges with academic experience. Nevertheless, Macfarlane uses past judgments to explain the new development in the Supreme Court.

Judges with different experience backgrounds exhibit distinct approaches in decision-making processes. If the experience the judges possess is significant, it is hard to disentangle ideology, education, socialization, and individual’s characteristics.

Macfarlane uses scores in the Ostberg and Wetstein’s newspaper to analyze the experience of attorneys that served in the Supreme Court of Canada during the Charter epoch. The scores, in a compelling manner prove that there is a correlation between how the Judge makes decisions and his or her experience.

Judges with strong academic experience are open-minded. The example brings to an end the naive view of the correlation between decision-making and ideology. For instance, one cannot claim that the judge’s ideological inclinations contribute to his or her academic quests.

Besides, the evidence contests the initial claims that the Supreme Court hires judges based on their academic background. It proves that six out of the last seven judges that the court hired had both academic and private practice experience.

Macfarlane asserts that to understand why the judges behave differently, one ought to consider their specific career paths. He uses the example of Justice Gerard La Forest.

He claims that by focusing on the period that Justice Gerard La Forest served in the federal department and as the assistant deputy attorney general, one would be able to understand why he maintained a conservative voting culture when it came to criminal cases.

In spite of the ideological factors binding the career choices, the judges’ experience contributes to their belief. This example underscores the reason why Macfarlane warns against labeling all the inherent features that a judge brings into the court as ideological.

Numerous factors contribute to the inherent features that a judge exhibits, therefore the difference in their decision-making processes.

The evidence confirms that even though ideologies contribute to the judgments the attorneys make, the judgments do not depend entirely on ideologies but on different factors like education, socialization, and personal temperament.

Conclusions made

Macfarlane splits his book into six chapters. The six chapters seek to describe the Supreme Court of Canada by focusing on various issues about the court. Every chapter arrives at a particular conclusion, which gives a significant insight into the main research of that particular chapter.

The first chapter that seeks to understand how the Supreme Court operates concludes by showing how interest in judicial role notions can help one to understand the Supreme Court and the innumerable factors that affect the court’s operations.

After analyzing how the Supreme Court of Canada has evolved, Macfarlane concludes that personal ideology has shaped the judgments made in court over time.

The conclusion facilitates to understand the factors that have contributed to the significant transformation of the Supreme Court of Canada since its inception. In a bid to arrive at this conclusion, he focuses on all the issues that influence the decision-making in the court.

After analyzing the decision-making processes of the Supreme Court, Macfarlane concludes that the norms of consensus, collegiality, and legal rules influence the decision-making processes. He arrives at this conclusion after analyzing the “front end” of the decision-making process that the court follows.

Besides, he also focuses on the factors that influence the different stages of the decision-making process. Hence, to arrive at his conclusion, Macfarlane made sure that he exhausts all the issues that influence the decision-making processes in the Supreme Court.

Macfarlane explores the judges’ perception of their tasks within the court. He concludes that the judges exercise some degree of collegiality, legal rule, and consensus when coming up with the final decision. Majority of the available scholarly literature focuses on how the judges arrive at a unanimous decision in court.

However, Macfarlane focuses on the impacts of an aspiration of unanimity on the decisions the judges make. This way, he manages to understand how the judges perceive their roles in the Supreme Court.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court of Canada has witnessed significant transformation over the time. To understand how the court operates, Macfarlane identifies numerous issues. They include external forces that affect the court, the degree of collegiality, legal rule, and consensus, and demand for the court to be efficient, among others.

To support his arguments, Macfarlane gives numerous examples of the cases arbitrated by the Supreme Court and judgments made. The examples help him to make conclusions that offer significant insight into the matters of the Supreme Court.

Works Cited

Macfarlane, Emmett. Governing from the Bench: The Supreme Court of Canada and the Judicial Role, Canada: UBC Press, 2013. Print.

Introduction

The Canadian Supreme Court is the highest court in the land and rules on public and legal matters (Emmett 1). The court’s rulings have improved the law division in the country and often clarify disputes regarding certain clauses in the constitution. According to Laidler (210), the court has played an integral part in promoting democracy and ensuring that legal decisions follow the guidelines of the constitution. The author also notes that the court is also involved in modeling the social and political structures in the country (211). The introduction of the Charter of Rights and Freedom in 1982 formed a foundation through which the court makes final verdicts relating to the law of the land.

Miljan (710-711) acknowledges that the Canadian Supreme Court lacked the ability to strike down or approve laws before the implementation of the charter. During this period, decisions were based on the Canadian Bill of Rights, which limited the number of civil liberty cases that were heard by the court. However, the adoption of the charter has elicited a lot of criticism on the judgments made by the court. In reference to Sharpe (3-4), the court is labeled as a “judicial activist” due to the political nature of the rulings that it makes. Despite such criticism, the charter has played a significant role in public policy issues. The aim of the current research is to determine the role of the Canadian Supreme Court in politics. The research also determines whether the court has too much power.

The role and power of the Canadian Supreme Court

In reference to Wetstein, Ostberg, and Songer (763), the Canadian Supreme Court makes decisions based purely on attitudinal grounds. The court’s political principles seem to occupy the center stage in the attitudinal based judgements. Ostberg and Wetstein (678) agree with this view and state that factual scenarios in specific cases tend to trigger the attitudinal verdicts given by the judges. This is usually evident when the judges rule on cases that attract a lot of interest from the media. In a research conducted by Wetstein, Ostberg, and Songer (764), the authors revealed that the Canadian Supreme Court exhibited high levels of ideological voting when making its decisions. In support of the court’s conduct, Bjornson (4-6) notes that the Supreme Court operations have been part of the country’s legal and political life.

Therefore, its functions cannot be free from politics. According to Ostberg and Wetstein (680-681), the Canadian Supreme Court judges are famous for giving unanimous rulings. The lack of opposing views subjects their judgments to high levels of scrutiny from the legislative branches and civil rights groups. Ostberg and Wetstein (682) also acknowledge that the Supreme Court has acted as a ‘subordinate’ in the Canadian political system, with majority of its rulings geared toward settling disagreements between the provincial and national administrations. Wetstein, Ostberg, and Songer (770-771) also report that the charter and the judicial review components of the Supreme Court have made majority of its verdicts appear to support the civil rights and liberties movements. Unlike the Supreme Court of the United States, the Canadian counterpart’s judgements are more likely to differ from those of parliament (Ostberg and Wetstein 690).

Perhaps this is because the court prefers to support issues that elicit massive political debates.

In a research undertaken by Baird and Gangl (600-603), the findings stated that majority of the judgments made by the Canadian Supreme Court were politically biased, and aimed at promoting public confidence. Ostberg and Wetstein (678) also note that the political nature of the court tends to promote the level of attention from the public and the media. Additionally, the court seems to take advantage of the media coverage to pass politically controversial judgements. Miljan (713) reports that incidences of ruling on politically controversial cases by the Supreme Court have been increasing in the last decade.

Baird and Gangl (604) indicate that the Canadian media tends to report the judgments of the court in political perspectives. This could explain why the Supreme Court rulings on issues regarding abortion and homosexuality elicited a lot of debate from the political spectrum. Bjornson (4-5) also argues that the court tends to alter the Canadian law to suit its philosophies and political ideologies.

However, Wetstein, Ostberg, and Songer (769) support the actions of the Supreme Court by stating that the position of the court in the political system subjects it to political interference. Emmett (16-17) notes that the court’s decisions are usually final and irreversible as stipulated in the charter. As a result, majority of the verdicts are prone to uproar from the public and the legislators. In the view of this, Sharpe (4) calls for ‘judicial restraint’ with regard to placing the interest of the public before the guidelines of the constitution. In addition, Emmett (17-19) blames the judicial review process for making the court unaccountable for its actions despite their implications. Based on these reviews, the Supreme Court has too much power and has in the past failed to act within its jurisdiction.

The charter has played a significant role in promoting the level of influence and power of the Supreme Court. As aforementioned, the Charter of Rights and Freedom was adopted to boost the process of making public policies. Emmett (11-15) argues that its adoption has led to structural and political transformation of the Canadian Supreme Court. Notably, the Supreme Court Amendment act afforded the institution the power to determine the cases that were worth hearing. Ostberg and Wetstein (682-683) point out that the “notwithstanding” clause in the charter affords the legislators the power to overrule the decisions of the Supreme Court. This clause was developed to allow the executive to override pledges within section two and sections seven to fifteen of the charter. Many scholars have argued on the rationale behind the “notwithstanding” clause with some stating that it offers the political players the power to overrule flawed decisions (Wetstein, Ostberg and Songer 769).

However, Ostberg and Wetstein (690-691) state that there has been an infrequent use of the clause, with the executive making very few attempts to alter the decisions of the Supreme Court. Moreover, the court has on several occasions overruled on the use of the ‘notwithstanding’ clause. Emmett (25-27) reports that the court’s decisions have in the past been rendered final despite complaints from the legislators and the public. In this regard, the court has occasionally appeared to be above the law and the judge’s decisions have been under the influence of political disposition. A research study by Wetstein, Ostberg, and Songer (764-766) compared the power of the United States Supreme Court to that of the Canadian counterpart. Contrary to the expected findings, these authors reported that the Canadian judges were less likely to abuse the power bestowed upon them by the charter.

The authors argued that the conduct of the previous courts should not be generalized because the sitting chief justice determines the level of power that a certain Supreme Court has. Thus, there have been discrepancies in establishing the level of political influence in the Canadian Supreme Court.

Songer and Szmer (390-391) refer to the Canadian court as ‘extreme’ with regard to the level of political influence and the making of unanimous judgements. The authors indicate that the Supreme Court is almost similar to the American model where unanimity in the ruling seems to be a prerequisite for gaining public confidence (391). The Supreme Court judges appear to be at liberty to sign on the decisions of their associates or create their own. However, these authors note that the proportion of verdicts that have lacked unanimity in Canada is about 25 percent. This is half the rate of dissent portrayed by courts in America and Australia.

Ostberg and Wetstein (682-683) report that the high level of unanimity in the Supreme Court is aimed at promoting the legitimacy of the court. Additionally Songer and Johnson (921) reveal that the unanimity in the decisions of the Canadian Supreme Court seems to focus more on issues that elicit political tension. The authors also note that such unanimity seems to disregard the backgrounds of the judges in terms of whether they support the liberal or conservative parties. Moreover, Ostberg and Wetstein (692-693) indicate that such unanimity is due to the powerful nature of the Supreme Court and the ability of the judges to amplify the democratic values at their own discretion.

Songer and Szmer (391-392) give an example of the ‘Insite’ program judgement in 2012 where the Supreme Court overruled the government decision to close the program. The judgement was based on a publicized unanimous decision that seemed to accuse the government of disregarding the law, and failing to protect the marginalized populations. In this case, the judge’s ideological stances did not seem to apply, hence promoting unanimity. Wetstein, Ostberg, and Songer (769) acknowledge that the judge’s decisions should have some form of opposition from the colleagues. The fact that the Canadian Supreme Court lacks such opposition is an indication of the power that the judges exhibit over other institutions.

In reference to Wetstein, Ostberg, and Songer (764), the global judicial system is becoming more politicized. In this view, it is only possible to assess the conduct of judges by looking at the controversies that have surrounded their cases in the past. Ostberg and Wetstein (680) also acknowledge that some judgements made by the Canadian Supreme Court in the past breached the constitutional guidelines. According to Rangaviz (254-255), the Omar Khadr’s case is a demonstration of the powerful nature of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court overruled a unanimous decision by the Court of appeal on the transfer of Khadr from the United States.

According to Roach (152-153), the Supreme Court demonstrated excessive control in its ruling. It seemed to ignore the most crucial elements of the case such as Khadr being a youngster during his arrest. Rangaviz (256) indicates that the case was a demonstration of the Supreme Court’s lack of respect for other institutions. The executive was angered by this decision and insisted that the court’s actions were a violation of the constitution. Karsoho (1-2) indicates that the ruling on the support of Physician Assisted Dying (PAD) on constitutional basis was a political stance. The ruling came after parliament rejected its legalization by a vote of 228 to 59 members. In 1994, the same court had ruled against a similar case on PAD. Karsoho (2) indicates that the publicized judgement on PAD did not seem to explain the reasons for the reversal of the previous judgement. These verdicts seem to support Ostberg and Wetstein’s (695) opinion that the Supreme Court has failed to promote the legitimacy of its decisions.

The Supreme Court acts in accordance with the law

In a research undertaken by Ostberg and Wetstein (678-679), the authors sought to establish whether decisions of the Canadian Supreme Court were based on political ideologies and attitudinal views. These authors compared the ideologies of the judges before and after appointment to the Supreme Court. Based on the results of the study, there was no correlation between the decisions made by the individual judges and their political ideologies. These findings were contrary to another study by Wetstein, Ostberg, and Songer (767) that indicated that the Supreme Court decisions were based on attitudinal perspectives.

However, this study was flawed, as it did not look at the ideologies of the judges before being appointed to court. Contrary to the aforementioned argument that the charter has promoted the violation of the constitution, Laidler (211-212) reports that it has actually transformed the legal system. Specifically, the charter has subjected the Supreme Court’s rulings to review by other political actors through the ‘notwithstanding’ clause. Therefore, there has been a balance between the opinions of the court and those of the legislators. Miljan (712-713) indicates that the Canadian Supreme Court has played an excellent role in the promotion of social reforms in the country. Additionally, Ostberg and Wetstein (680) argue that the Supreme Court has made remarkable efforts in clarifying issues that have elicited high level of reluctance among the legislators and the federal arms. This clearly illustrates that the court has acted within its jurisdiction.

According to Laidler (212-214), the Canadian Supreme Court cannot separate itself from political matters. The judicial review obligation of the court justifies its functions in the legal and political arena. Kelly and Murphy (219-220) also argue that the court should be commended for being a political power broker in Canada. In this view, critics should not underestimate the impacts of its judgements. These authors refer to the operations of the court as ‘meta-political’ due to their capacity to complement the role of other political organs (219). In reference to Sharpe (4), the Supreme Court also ensures that political players protect and balance the national interests of Canada with the autonomy of the constitution. Such balancing promotes peace and unity and enhances the relations between the federal governments and the people.

The court is well within its jurisdiction in respect to enunciating the comprehensive constitutional principles that govern the delivery of rights and freedoms to the people of Canada. Kelly (5) acknowledges that the Supreme Court of Canada operates independently without interference from the political arms, and does not usurp the functions of the legislators. Bjornson (3) also notes that the court is impartial and exerts neutrality in political matters. In conclusion, Songer and Johnson (911) state that international judicial roles are under transformation and the incorporation of political matters in the judiciary is becoming acceptable. In this regard, the Canadian Court acts within the international jurisdiction.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court is the final court of appeal in the land and serves the citizens on matters of public and legal concern (Supreme Court of Canada). Despite the clear roles of the Supreme Court as outlined in the constitution and the charter, it has been accused of exercising too much power in its rulings. According to Wetstein, Ostberg and Songer (763), the court makes its decisions based on attitudinal grounds. The attitudinal views are dependent on the political ideologies of the judges. Baird and Gangl (597) argue that the rulings of the court are political, and aimed at altering the level of public confidence.

The authors also indicate that the court tends to use the media to voice its political stances on various issues. In addition, previous judgement and overruling of decisions made by the court of appeal and other political actors portray the amount of power exhibited by the court. However, a research by Ostberg and Wetstein (678) showed lack of correlation between the rulings made by the court and political ideologies of the judges. Additionally, Laidler (210) argues that the charter promotes balance between the opinion of the court and that of political actors. Although the Supreme Court has exercised too much power in ruling over some cases, there is evidence to suggest that most of its decisions have been well within its jurisdiction.

Works Cited

Baird, Vanessa A and Amy Gangl. “Shattering the Myth of Legality: The Impact of the Media’s Framing of Supreme Court Procedures on Perceptions of Fairness.” International Society of Political Psychology 27.4 (2006): 597-614. Print.

Bjornson, Cheryl. Supreme Court appointments: It’s time for a change. Toronto, Ontario: Ryerson Polytechnic University, 2005. Web.

Emmett, Macfarlane. Governing from the bench: The Supreme Court of Canada and the judicial role. Vancouver, Toronto: UBC Press, 2013. Print.

Karsoho, Hadi. “The Supreme Court of Canada Ruling in Carter v. Canada: A New Era of End-of-Life Care for Canadians.” Bioéthique Online 4.4 (2005): 1-3. Web.

Kelly, James B and Michael Murphy. “Shaping the constitutional dialogue on federalism: Canada’s Supreme court as meta-political actor.” Oxford Journals 35.2 (2005): 217-243. Web.

Kelly, James B. Governing with the charter: Legislative and judicial activism and framers’ intent. Vancouver, BC: UBC Press, 2005. Web.

Laidler, Paweá. “The Significant Role of the Supreme Court in the United States and Canada. A Comparative Study.” Proceedings from the Eighth Conference of British, American and Canadian Studies. Kraków, Poland: Institute for American Studies and Polish Diaspora, Jagiellonian University, 2005. 209-215. Web.

Miljan, L. “Supreme Court coverage in Canada: A case study of media coverage of the Whatcott decision.” Oñati Socio-legal Series, 4.4 (2014): 709-724. Web.

Ostberg, C L and Matthew E Wetstein. “The Canadian Supreme Court: Attitudinal Conflict in Right to Counsel Cases.” Political Science Quarterly 121.4 (2007): 677-697. Print.

Rangaviz, David. “Dangerous Deference: The Supreme Court of Canada in Canada v. Khadr.” Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review 46.9 (2011): 253-269. Web.

Roach, Kent. “The Supreme Court at the Bar of Politics: The Afghan Detainee and Omar Khadr Cases.” National Journal of Constitutional Law 28.9 (2010): 115-155. Web.

Sharpe, Robert J. The Supreme Court of Canada in Changing Times. Toronto: Ontario Justice Education Network, 2003. Web.

Songer, Donald R and John Szmer. “Explaining dissent on the Supreme Court of Canada.” Canadian Journal of Political Science 44.2 (2011): 389–409. Print.

Songer, Donald R and Susan W Johnson. “Judicial Decision Making In the Supreme Court of Canada: Updating the Personal Attribute Model.” Canadian Journal of Political Science 40.4 (2007): 911–934. Web.

Supreme Court of Canada. Role of the Court. 2014. Web.

Wetstein, Matthew E, et al. “Ideological consistency and attitudinal conflict: A comparative Analysis of the U.S. and Canadian Supreme Courts.” Comparative Political Studies 42.6 (2009): 763-792. Print.