Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T04:25:03.714Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Unanimous Decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada as a Test of the Attitudinal Model

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 April 2009

Donald R. Songer  and
Julia Siripurapu
Donald R. Songer*
Affiliation:
University of South Carolina
Julia Siripurapu*
Affiliation:
Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, PC
*
Donald R. Songer, Department of Political Science, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC 29208, [email protected].
Julia Siripurapu, Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, PC, Boston, MA, [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Abstract. Most of the empirical work on the decision making of justices on the Supreme Court of Canada has taken as its exclusive focus the divided decisions of the Court. In contrast to this extensive body of research on divided decision, the much more limited knowledge of unanimous decisions is troubling because such decisions constitute nearly three-quarters of all of the formal decisions of the Court. The analysis reported below provides a first step towards understanding the neglected nature of unanimous decisions. This investigation of the nature and causes of unanimity in the Supreme Court of Canada explores two competing explanations: one drawn from the most widely accepted general explanation of judicial voting (that is, the attitudinal model) and the other from the perspectives of the justices themselves. To determine that perspective, the author interviewed ten of the current or recent justices on the Court. After describing these two alternative accounts of unanimity, empirical tests are conducted of the implications of each view. We find substantially more support for the perspectives of the justices than for the perspective derived from the attitudinal model on unanimity.

Résumé. La majeure partie du travail de recherche empirique portant sur la manière dont les juges de la Cour suprême du Canada prennent leurs décisions se concentre exclusivement sur les décisions divisées de cette institution. En contraste avec cette foison d'études sur les décisions divisées, le corpus beaucoup plus limité de connaissances sur les décisions unanimes pose un problème important, car celles-ci représentent presque les trois quarts de la totalité des décisions formelles de la Cour suprême. L'analyse présentée ci-dessous se veut un premier pas vers une meilleure connaissance de la nature, trop négligée jusqu'à présent, de ces décisions unanimes. Cette investigation sur la nature et les causes de l'unanimité dans les décisions de la Cour suprême du Canada explore deux voies se trouvant en compétition : l'une qui résulte de l'explication la plus largement acceptée du vote judiciaire (soit le modèle attitudinal), et l'autre qui découle de la perspective personnelle des juges. Pour élucider cette perspective propre des juges, les auteurs ont interviewé dix juges actuels et récents de la Cour suprême du Canada. Après avoir décrit ces deux explications alternatives de l'unanimité, ils effectuent des tests empiriques sur les implications respectives du modèle attitudinal et des perspectives propres des juges. L'étude révèle que les perspectives propres des juges ont beaucoup plus de poids que la perspective dérivée du modèle attitudinal en ce qui concerne l'unanimité.

Type
Research Article
Information
Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue canadienne de science politique , Volume 42 , Issue 1 , March 2009 , pp. 65 - 92
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Political Science Association 2009

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

Carp, Robert A. and Rowland, C.K.. 1983. Policymaking and Politics in the Federal District Courts. Knoxville TN: University of Tennessee Press.Google Scholar
Danelski, David J. 1969. “The Supreme Court of Japan: An Exploratory Study.” In Comparative Judicial Behavior: Cross-Cultural Studies of Political Decision Making in the East and West, ed. Schubert, Glendon and Danelski, David J.. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fouts, Donald E. 1969. “Policy Making in the Supreme Court of Canada, 1950–1960.” In Comparative Judicial Behavior, Cross-Cultural Studies of Political Decision Making in the East and West, ed. Schubert, Glendon and Danelski, David J.. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gadbois, George H._Jr. 1969. “Selection, Background Characteristics, and Voting Behavior of Indian Supreme Court Judges, 1950–1960.” In Comparative Judicial Behavior: Cross-Cultural Studies of Political Decision Making in the East and West, ed. Schubert, Glendon and Danelski, David J.. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Goldman, Sheldon. 1975. “Voting Behavior on the United States Courts of Appeals Revisited.” American Political Science Review 69: 491–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
King, Gary, Keohane, Robert O. and Verba, Sidney. 1994. Designing Social Inquiry: Scientific Inference in Qualitative Research. Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Kritzer, Herbert M., Pickerill, J. Mitchell and Richards, Mark. 1998. “Bringing the Law Back: Finding a Role for Law in Models of Supreme Court Decision Making.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association. Chicago.Google Scholar
Ostberg, C.L. and Wetstein, Matthew. 1998. “Dimensions of Attitudes Underlying Search and Seizure Decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada.” Canadian Journal of Political Science 31(4): 767–87.Google Scholar
Ostberg, C.L. and Wetstein, Matthew. 2007. Attitudinal Decision Making in the Supreme Court of Canada. Vancouver: UBC Press.Google Scholar
Peck, Sidney R. 1969. “A Scalogram Analysis of the Supreme Court of Canada, 1958–1967.” In Comparative Judicial Behavior: Cross-Cultural Studies of Political Studies of Political Decision Making in the East and West, ed. Schubert, Glendon and Danelski, David J.. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Richards, Mark J. and Kritzer, Herbert M.. 2002. “Jurisprudential Regimes in Supreme Court Decision Making.” American Political Science Review 96: 305–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robertson, David. 1998. Judicial Discretion in the House of Lords. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Rohde, David W. and Spaeth, Harold J.. 1976. Supreme Court Decision Making. San Francisco: W.H. Freeman and Company.Google Scholar
Samonte, Abelardo G. 1969. “The Philippine Supreme Court: A Study of Judicial Background Characteristics, Attitudes, and Decision Making.” In Comparative Judicial Behavior: Cross-Cultural Studies of Political Decision Making in the East and West, ed. Schubert, Glendon and Danelski, David J.. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Schubert, Glendon. 1965. The Judicial Mind: The Attitudes and Ideologies of Supreme Court Justices, 1946–1963. Evanston: Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar
Schubert, Glendon. 1969. “Two Casual Models of Decision Making by the High Court of Australia.” In Comparative Judicial Behavior: Cross-Cultural Studies of Political Decision-Making in the East and West, ed. Schubert, Glendon and Danelski, David J.. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Segal, Jeffrey A. and Cover, Albert D.. 1989. “Ideological Values and the Votes of US Supreme Justices.” American Political Science Review 83: 557–65.Google Scholar
Segal, Jeffrey A. and Spaeth, Harold J.. 1993. The Supreme Court and the Attitudinal Model. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Segal, Jeffrey A. and Spaeth, Harold J.. 1996. “The Influence of Stare Decisis on the Votes of the United States Supreme Court Justices.” American Journal of Political Science 40: 971–1003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Segal, Jeffrey A. and Spaeth, Harold J.. 2002. The Supreme Court and the Attitudinal Model Revisited. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Songer, Donald R. and Johnson, Susan W.. 2007. “Judicial Decision Making in the Supreme Court of Canada: Updating the Personal Attribute Model.” Canadian Journal of Political Science 40(4): 911–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Songer, Donald R. and Lindquist, Stephanie A.. 1996. “Not the Whole Story: The Impact of Justices' Values on Supreme Court Decision Making.” American Journal of Political Science 40: 1049–63.Google Scholar
Sunstein, Cass R., Schkade, David, Ellman, Lisa M. and Sawicki, Andres. 2006. Are Judges Political? An Empirical Analysis of the Federal Judiciary. Washington DC: Brookings.Google Scholar
Tate, C. Neal. 1972. “Social Backgrounds and Voting Behavior in the Philippine Supreme Court.” Lawasia 3: 317–38.Google Scholar
Tate, C. Neal and Sittiwong, Paul. 1989. “Decision Making in the Canadian Supreme Court: Extending the Personal Attributes Model Across Nations.” Journal of Politics 51(4): 900–16.Google Scholar
Wetstein, Matthew E. and Ostberg, C.L.. 1999. “Search and Seizure Cases in the Supreme Court of Canada: Extending an American Model of Judicial Decision Making Across Countries.” Social Science Quarterly 80(4): 757–74.Google Scholar