The Supreme Court and the Social Conception of Abortion

Skeptics of Supreme Court power have pointed to abortion policy as an example of surprising limits on the justices' power to change society. I argue, however, that the Court's ruling in Roe v. Wade played a critical role in transforming how Americans think and talk about abortion. I develop an account of the development of the social conception of abortion from a critical reading of twentieth century American journalism and then test some predictions of that account through the use of quantitative content analyses. I conclude by discussing some implications for the study of judicial politics and public constitutionalism.     

The Aftermath of 11 September 2001: Liberty vs. Security before the Supreme Court of Canada

The terrorist acts of 11 September 2001 and the war on terrorismthat followed have induced a pervasive sense of insecurity inCanada, as elsewhere, and brought about a shift of public policytowards a confinement of security risks in a global era. Inthe polity, as in the legal sphere, there has been an obviousshift of paradigm, from liberty to security. In December 2001,Canada passed an Anti-Terrorism Act. As far as human rightsand freedoms are concerned, the Anti-Terrorism Act is a farcry from the draconian measures of the American Patriot Act,with its military tribunals, incommunicado confinement, preventivedetention without charge, and potentially expeditious applicationof the death penalty. Nevertheless, the Canadian Anti-TerrorismAct remains, in nature, an emergency legislation. In particular,as will be seen here, there has been a clear change of mind,within the Supreme Court of Canada, regarding the authorityof international human rights law, at least where highly sensitivesecurity matters are involved, such as deportation of politicalrefugees suspected of being linked with terrorist organisations. To emphasize this shift in attitude, an analytical framework,allowing us to distinguish between various types of constitutionalreasoning, is needed. This heuristic device must also be sophisticatedenough to single out the emergency situation from the normalstate of affairs. This may not be apparent in day-to-day life,but, since 11 September, the concept of emergency, and the notionthat an exceptional state of affair exists, have been a majorinfluence on our political world.     

Authority to treat: a comparative look at the jurisdiction,practice and procedure of the Supreme Court of Victoria,Children's Court of Victoria and Family Court of Australia in medical matters

The medical treatment of children is a crucial interface of law and medicine. The problems in this emotive area of law are compounded by the current state of the law in Australia which is uncertain and fractured. It is the purpose of this article to examine the jurisdictions of the various courts that stand competent to order that a child undergo medical treatment in circumstances where the child's parents/guardian refuse to provide consent to such treatment. The problems associated with the present system are identified and proposals for the reform of the current system offered.     

The Supreme Court and the pledge of allegiance: a hollow victory

In Elk Grove Unified School District v Newdow (Elk Grove),1 124 S. Ct. 2301 (2004). View all notes the Supreme Court, in an 8–0 judgment,2 Justice Scalia chose not to participate in the outcome since he criticized the Ninth Circuit's ruling before it reached the High Court. Elk Grove Unified Sch. Dist. v Newdow, 124 S. Ct. 384 (Mem) (2003). See also Mark Walsh, Scalia: Courts go too far on Church State, Education Week, 22 January 2003, p. 22; Houston Chronicle, Justice decries courts removal of God, 13 January 2003, p. 5. View all notes with three concurrences, upheld the words ‘under God’ in the Pledge of Allegiance. In light of the uproar caused by Elk Grove, this article is divided into three parts. After reviewing the history of the Pledge the second section examines the litigation involving the pledge, including Elk Grove in this regard. The article concludes with brief reflections on the meaning of Elk Grove.     

Judging gender: difference and dissent at the Supreme Court of Canada

Over 25 years ago, Justice Bertha Wilson asked “Will women judges really make a difference?” Taking up her question, we consider the place of difference in gender and judging. Our focus is on those ‘differences of opinion’ between judges that take the form of written and published judicial dissent. We present and interrogate recent statistics about practices of dissent on the Supreme Court of Canada in relation to gender. The statistics are provocative, but do not provide straightforward answers about gender and judging. They do, however, pose new questions, and suggest the importance of better theorizing and exploring the space of dissent.     

Morgentaler v. The Queen in the Supreme Court of Canada.

In Morgentaler v. R., the Supreme Court of Canada struck down the abortion provisions in the Criminal Code. In a five to two split, a majority of the Supreme Court judges found that section 251 offended a pregnant woman's constitutionally protected right not to be deprived of her "life, liberty, and security of the person." Sheilah Martin reviews the three majority judgments and focuses on the decision written by Madame Justice Wilson. She believes that Madame Justice Wilson's opinion merits special attention in several regards: her conclusions on the constitutional rights of pregnant women; her recognition and validation of women's perspectives on abortion; and her approach to balancing women's interests in reproductive self-determination against the state's interest in regulating reproduction. Sheilah Martin concludes that this decision will reverberate far into the future. Even though it fails to establish clear guidelines concerning governmental power to control access to abortion, its principles outline the legal framework in which future litigation will occur, and it will limit and shape the terms of any ensuing political debate. In addition, Madame Justice Wilson's judgment holds great promise for those looking to the Court to promote the rights of women and other historically disadvantaged groups.     

多数主义的法院:美国联邦最高法院司法审查的性质

长期以来,美国联邦最高法院的司法审查虽被视为法治和人权的捍卫者,却被作为民主的对立面.结果,它在理论上陷入难以自拔的合法性困境,或者说"反多数难题".本文结合法律和政治学者的讨论,考察美国司法审查的现实图景,指出它具有很强的"多数主义"性质.具体表现为,多数司法判决符合当下多数公众的意见,最高法院这一机构和司法审查这一制度获得多数民众的持久认同;不但如此,司法审查能够在一定程度上回应公众意见,从而在较长时段与主流意见的变迁保持一致.这种"多数主义"的性质,是由法官自身对公众意见的关注和尊重、其他部门和公众对宪法含义的争夺以及法官任命体制等外在制衡,共同促成和保障的.美国联邦最高法院在与其他机构的竞争合作中动态地表达民意,它受制于民主过程,也塑造民主过程.在此意义上,司法审查是美国民主体制的一部分,具有民主合法性.对于"反多数难题"的讨论而言,真正的问题不是司法审查是否符合"民主",而是现有的民主理论是否符合政治现实.