Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T07:37:00.887Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Strategic Leadership and Political Change on the Canadian Supreme Court: Analyzing the Transition to Chief Justice

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 October 2005

Matthew E. Wetstein  and
C. L. Ostberg
Matthew E. Wetstein
Affiliation:
San Joaquin Delta College
C. L. Ostberg
Affiliation:
University of the Pacific
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Abstract. This study discusses theoretical concepts from two strands of public law literature, namely rational choice accounts of strategic behaviour and notions of judicial leadership, and examines their relevance for explaining changes in judicial behaviour on the Canadian Supreme Court. Specifically, we test whether a justice who is elevated to the chief position strategically alters his/her patterns of judicial behaviour. The study uses a multiple regression equation that controls for rival hypotheses, and uncovers evidence of strategic change by all three modern chief justices. While Justices Dickson and Lamer appear to have consolidated their position as task leaders once they were promoted to the helm of the Court, Justice McLachlin made a remarkable change in her dissent behaviour to emerge as the preeminent social leader on her own Court. The study demonstrates that rational choice models of strategic behaviour and judicial leadership are useful theoretical frameworks for explaining changes in behaviour once recent Canadian justices were promoted to the chief position. Moreover, the findings illustrate the importance of incorporating critical institutional features when studying changing behaviour in other high courts around the world.

Résumé. Cette étude discute des concepts théoriques de deux composantes de la littérature du droit public, à savoir les témoignages de choix rationnel en fait de comportement stratégique et les notions de leadership judiciaire, et examine leur pertinence pour expliquer les changements de comportement judiciaire à la Cour suprême du Canada. Plus précisément, nous cherchons à déterminer si un juge qui devient juge en chef impose des changements stratégiques à son comportement judiciaire. L'étude utilise une équation de régression multiple qui neutralise les hypothèses rivales, et découvre des preuves de changement stratégique chez les trois juges en chef contemporains. Tandis que les juges Dickson et Lamer semblent avoir consolidé leur position de responsables de tâche après leur accession à la tête de la Cour, Madame le juge McLachlin transforma son comportement de dissidente pour devenir le leader social confirmé de sa propre Cour. L'étude démontre que les modèles de choix rationnel en fait de comportement stratégique et de leadership judiciaire sont des cadres théoriques utiles pour expliquer les changements de comportement des juges canadiens récemment promus à la position de juges en chef. En outre, l'étude démontre qu'il est important d'incorporer certaines caractéristiques institutionnelles clés lorsqu'on examine les changements de comportement dans d'autres tribunaux de grande instance de par le monde.

Type
Research Article
Information
Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue canadienne de science politique , Volume 38 , Issue 3 , September 2005 , pp. 653 - 673
Copyright
© 2005 Cambridge University Press

Access options

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

References

Baum, Lawrence. 1988. “Measuring Policy Change in the U.S. Supreme Court.” American Political Science Review 82: 905–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baum, Lawrence. 1992. “Membership Change and Collective Voting Change in the United States Supreme Court.” Journal of Politics 54: 3–24.Google Scholar
Danelski, David. 1989. “The Influence of the Chief Justice in the Decisional Process of the Supreme Court.” In American Court Systems, eds. Sheldon Goldman and Austin Sarat. New York: Longman, pp. 486–99.
Danelski, David and Jeanne Danelski. 1989. “Leadership in the Warren Court.” In American Court Systems, eds. Sheldon Goldman and Austin Sarat. New York: Longman, pp. 500–10.
Ducat, Craig R. and Victor E. Flango. 1976. Leadership in State Supreme Courts: Roles of the Chief Justices. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Professional Paper Series in American Politics.
Epp, Charles. 1996. “Do Bills of Rights Matter? The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.” American Political Science Review 90: 765–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Epstein, Lee and Jack Knight. 1998. The Choices Justices Make. Washington, DC: CQ Press.
Flemming, Roy B. 2004. Tournament of Appeals: Granting Judicial Review in Canada. Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia Press.
Flemming, Roy B. and Glenn S. Kurtz. 2002a. “Selecting Appeals for Judicial Review in Canada: A Replication and Multivariate Test of American Hypotheses.” Journal of Politics 64: 232–48.Google Scholar
Flemming, Roy B. and Glenn S. Kurtz. 2002b. “Repeat Litigators and Agenda Setting on the Supreme Court of Canada.” Canadian Journal of Political Science 35: 811–33.Google Scholar
Fouts, Donald E. 1969. “Policy Making in the Supreme Court of Canada, 1950–1960.” In Comparative Judicial Behavior, eds. Glendon Schubert and David Danelski. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 257–92.
Gilligan, Carol. 1982. In a Different Voice: Psychological Theory and Women's Development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Greene, Ian, Carl Baar, Peter McCormick, George Szablowski and Martin Thomas. 1998. Final Appeal: Decision-Making in Canada's Courts of Appeal. Toronto: James Lorimer.
Hausegger, Lori and Stacia Haynie. 2003. “Judicial Decisionmaking and the Use of Panels in the Canadian Supreme Court and the South African Appellate Division.” Law and Society Review 37: 635–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haynie, Stacia L. 1992. “Leadership and Consensus on the U.S. Supreme Court.” Journal of Politics 54: 1158–69.Google Scholar
Hennigar, Matthew A. 2004a. “Expanding the Dialogue Debate: Canadian Federal Government Responses to Lower Court Charter Decisions.” Canadian Journal of Political Science 37 (1): 3–21.Google Scholar
Hennigar, Matthew A. 2004b. “The Canadian Government's Litigation Strategy in Sexual Orientation Cases.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Canadian Political Science Association, Winnipeg, June 4.
Hogg, Peter W. and Allison Bushell. 1997. “The Charter Dialogue between Courts and Legislatures.” Osgoode Hall Law Journal 35: 75–124.Google Scholar
Lanier, Drew Noble and Sandra L. Wood. 2001. “Moving On Up: Institutional Position, Politics, and the Chief Justice.” The American Review of Politics 22: 93–127.Google Scholar
Maltzman, Forrest, James F. Spriggs_II and Paul Wahlbeck. 2000. Crafting Law on the Supreme Court: The Collegial Game. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Manfredi, Christopher P. 2001. Judicial Power and the Charter: Canada and the Paradox of Liberal Constitutionalism, 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Manfredi, Christopher P. 2002. “Strategic Behaviour and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.” In The Myth of the Sacred: The Charter, the Courts, and the Politics of the Constitution in Canada, eds. Patrick James, Donald E. Abelson and Michael Lusztig. Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press, pp. 147–67.
Manfredi, Christopher P. and James B. Kelly. 1999. “Six Degrees of Dialogue: A Response to Hogg and Bushell.” Osgoode Hall Law Journal 37: 513–27.Google Scholar
McCormick, Peter. 1992. “The Supervisory Role of the Supreme Court of Canada: Analysis of Appeals from Provincial Courts of Appeal, 1949–1990.” Supreme Court Law Review 3 (2nd): 1.Google Scholar
McCormick, Peter. 1993. “Assessing Leadership on the Supreme Court of Canada: Towards a Typology of Chief Justice Performance.” Supreme Court Law Review 4 (2nd): 409–29.Google Scholar
McCormick, Peter. 1994a. “Career Patterns and the Delivery of Reasons for Judgment in the Supreme Court of Canada (1949–1993).” Supreme Court Law Review 5 (2nd): 499–521.Google Scholar
McCormick, Peter. 1994b. Canada's Courts. Toronto: James Lorimer.
McCormick, Peter. 2000. Supreme At Last: The Evolution of the Supreme Court of Canada. Toronto: James Lorimer.
Morton, F. L. and Rainer Knopff. 2001. The Charter Revolution and the Court Party. Petersborough, ON: Broadview Press.
Murphy, Walter. 1964. Elements of Judicial Strategy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Ostberg, C. L., Mathew E. Wetstein and Craig R. Ducat. 2002. “Attitudinal Dimensions of Supreme Court Decision Making in Canada: The Lamer Court, 1991–1995.” Political Research Quarterly 55: 235–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ostberg, C. L., Mathew E. Wetstein and Craig R. Ducat. 2003. “Acclimation Effects on the Supreme Court of Canada: A Cross-Cultural Examination of Judicial Folklore.” Social Science Quarterly 84: 704–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peck, Sidney R. 1967a. “A Behavioural Approach to the Judicial Process: Scalogram Analysis.” Osgoode Hall Law Journal 5: 1–28.Google Scholar
Peck, Sidney R. 1967b. “The Supreme Court of Canada, 1958–1966: A Search for Policy Through Scalogram Analysis.” Canadian Bar Review 45: 666–725.Google Scholar
Peck, Sidney R. 1969. “A Scalogram Analysis of the Supreme Court of Canada: 1958–1967.” In Comparative Judicial Behavior, eds. Glendon Schubert and David Danelski. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 193–234.
Pritchett, C. Hermann. 1941. “Divisions of Opinion Among Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court.” American Political Science Review 35: 890–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Russell, Peter H. 1995. “Canadian Constraints on Judicialization from Without.” In The Global Expansion of Judicial Power, eds. C. Neal Tate and Torbjorn Vallinder. New York: New York University Press, pp. 137–50.
Schmitz, Cristin. 1999. “Communication, Consensus Among McLachlin's Targets: Future Chief Justice Holds Wide-Ranging Press Conference.” The Lawyers Weekly 19 (no. 37), November 19, 1999.Google Scholar
Schubert, Glendon. 1965. The Judicial Mind: Attitudes and Ideologies of Supreme Court Justices, 1946–1963. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.
Schubert, Glendon. 1974. The Judicial Mind Revisited. New York: Oxford University Press.
Segal, Jeffrey and Harold Spaeth. 1993. The Supreme Court and the Attitudinal Model. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Segal, Jeffrey and Harold Spaeth. 2002. The Supreme Court and the Attitudinal Model Revisited. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Supreme Court of Canada. Morgentaler v. The Queen, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 30.
Supreme Court of Canada. Vriend v. Alberta, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 493.
Tannen, Deborah. 1990. You Just Don't Understand: Women and Men in Conversation. New York: Ballantine.
Tate, C. Neal and Panu Sittiwong. 1989. “Decision Making in the Canadian Supreme Court: Extending the Personal Attributes Model Across Nations.” Journal of Politics 51: 900–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walker, Thomas G., Lee Epstein and William J. Dixon. 1988. “On the Mysterious Demise of Consensual Norms in the United States Supreme Court.” Journal of Politics 50: 361–89.Google Scholar
Wilson, Bertha. 1990. “Will Women Judges Really Make a Difference?” Osgoode Hall Law Journal 28 (3): 507–22.Google Scholar