大家
郭国汀律师专栏
[主页]->[大家]->[郭国汀律师专栏]->[Does Judicial Activism damaged the Democracy in Canada?]
郭国汀律师专栏
·答张鹤慈先生质疑
·刘荻为何害怕这篇文章? 中国知识分子死了!
·郭国汀答小乔函
***(49)重大人权案件辩护
·民运英雄杨天水危在旦夕
·强烈谴责中共暴政企图暗杀冯正虎先生的流氓下三滥作为!
·关注声援支持人权律师刘士辉,强烈抗议流氓暴政的政治迫害人权律师!
·呼吁全球华人关注支持民族英雄郭泉博士
·真正的知识分子英雄郭泉博士
·决不以出卖灵魂出卖人格尊严为代价打官司
·严正警告流氓无赖中共匪帮
·南郭警告胡锦涛别再玩火!
·强烈谴责中共暴政枉法滥捕自由作家谭作人先生
·胡锦涛最害怕最恨谁?
·为申曦(曾节明)作证的证明函
·论颠覆及煽动颠覆国家政权罪
·颠覆国家政权罪的法理解析
·中共阉法院认定的颠覆国家政权案件"犯罪事实"简析
·关注声援支持中国知识分子英雄郭泉博士
·我为郭泉博士抗辩
·敬请各界朋友关注声援支持民主斗士郭泉教授
·郭国汀律师称中共颠覆(煽动颠覆)国家政权罪系违宪恶法
·烈女邓玉娇传记六则
·“法学专家”是因“理性”还是因“奴性”而胡说八道?!
·强烈谴责胡锦涛及中共专制暴政枉法杀害英雄义士杨佳!
·杨佳精神不朽 抗暴当走退党之路
·岂能将英雄义士杨佳与希特勒、哈尔曼、唐永明相提并论?!
·杨佳案7名涉案警察证人和杨佳的母亲必须出庭作证
·郭国汀预言死刑将造就更多杨佳
·杨佳略传六则一揽
·悼颂杨佳
·杨佳依自然法无罪而且是个值得国人敬重的英雄!
·郭国汀再谈杨佳案的辩护
·郭国汀律师的臭文
·正义、尊严、公道与犯罪----杨佳有罪吗?
·敬请关注声援失踪的律师英雄张鉴康
·强烈谴责中共胡氏当局非法剥夺人权律师张鉴康的执业权
·坚决支持李国涛先生的义举,反对极权专制独裁政治!
·严正责令胡锦涛及中共当局——立即无条件释放民运志士李国涛!
·强烈谴责中共恶意迫害自由战士杨天水、许万平/郭国汀
·强烈谴责中共流氓暴政政治迫害冯正虎先生
·历史耻辱柱上的中国法官
·中国律师受迫害的根源何在?-—声援支持高智晟律师
·良知律师朱久虎被刑拘突显中国司法制度的流氓化/郭国汀
·闻小乔遭警方驱逐毒打有感
·强烈谴责中共专制暴政纵容黑社会暴力侵袭郭飞雄先生的暴行!
·敬请各界朋友们关注声援支持正在为全民族承受无边苦难的英雄郭飞雄
·郭国汀敦促胡锦涛立即无条件释放人权英雄郭飞雄、高智晟的公开函
·强烈谴责上海市当局非法拘禁李剑虹 郭国汀
·专制流氓暴政本质的再暴露——强烈谴责中共流氓黑社会企图暗杀高智晟律师
·严正责令胡锦涛立即无条件释放朱宇飙律师!
·评论严正责令胡锦涛立即无条件释放朱宇飙律师!
·强烈谴责中共专制暴政迫害人权律师杨在新!
·强烈谴责胡氏专制暴政滥施淫威迫害当代中国最高贵的人吕耿松
·中共专制暴政再次公然指鹿为马!——我为陈树庆先生抗辩
·强烈谴责中共流氓专制暴政悍然施暴人权律师李和平!
·谁是精神病?!敬请关注自由思想者贺伟华先生
·郭国汀敬请全球华人关注自由思想者贺伟华
·强烈谴责胡氏专制暴政对中国知识分子的政治迫害!---我为荆楚抗辩
·严正警告胡锦涛:立即无条件释放高智晟律师!
·郭国汀谈胡佳案
·恶法不除,国无宁日/郭国汀
·严正学先生何罪之有!
·中国涉外案件没有一起获得执行 郭国汀
***(50)坎坷人权律师路
·郭国汀致中国律师网全体新老网友的公开函
·成为一名人权律师!---郭国汀律师专访
·令我热泪横流的小诗 郭国汀
·无知缺德者当权必然造成人为灾难--正视科学尊重科学
·我们要说真话-答红旗生的蛋 郭国汀
·出身论,成份论应当休矣!
·民族败类!你是否中国人?
·说句心里话
·孔子当然伟大.郭国汀
·时代不同了! 郭国汀
·可敬的国安公安或网警请自重!
·我们决不再沉默! 郭国汀
·秋池君倡议创立中共中国律师网上支部有感/南郭
·我有罪,我可以再作一次自我辩护吗?
·错兄你该醒醒了!
·给某北大高材生的公开函
·答"语文大师"之指责
·答错别字的终结者/南郭
·吾不同意你的观点,但捍卫阁下的自由表达权。错兄的贴还是应当保留
·答龙吟君/南郭
·答紫兄质疑/南郭
·答醉翁
·答迷风先生/南郭
·驳上海当局特务造谣抵毁郭国汀律师的谎言/南郭
·答紫兄质疑/南郭
·吾不同意你的观点,但坚决捍卫阁下的自由表达权。
·郭国汀:我向错兄致歉--同时为错兄说句公道话
·我的观点与立场--驳非法入侵
·郭国汀 汝吹牛!
·南郭不但会骂人而且必将把“乡愿,德之贼”型的小人骂得狗血喷头!
·纯属多余的担忧
·伟大的中华文明博大精深的中华文化---答孟庆强
·我看郭国汀律师
[列出本栏目所有内容]
欢迎在此做广告
Does Judicial Activism damaged the Democracy in Canada?
声明:此文作者禁止复制,如需转载必须经得作者同意。

   

   Thomas Guoting Guo

   

   'Judicial activism' is aterm not much liked by judges. Used pejoratively it suggests that the ethicaljudge is a passive, mechanical creature, a rather unflattering picture of judicialwork. Used eulogistically it seems to imply that bold and creative judges areakin to political activists, a not very reputable bunch and another unwelcomejudicial image.[1]

   judicial activism"badly impairs both qualities, and in that way tends to the destruction of therule of law.[2]judicial activism" is here used to mean using judicial power for a purposeother than that for which it was granted, namely doing justice according to lawin the particular case.

   Tom put it that “ajudicial activist is essentially (1) a judge who does not apply all and onlysuch relevant, existing, clear, positive law as is available, and (2) a judgewho makes such decisions by drawing on his or her moral, political or religiousviews at to what the content of the law should be”. The judicial activist hasan overt or operative agenda for law reform in identifiable directions thatrequire moral and political rather than legal legitimation. This is oftendescribed as making policy decisions.

   In so far as judicialactivism is a failure to apply existing law it may be called 'negative judicialactivism', and in so far as it replaces existing clear and relevant law withnew rules, something which appellate courts have the capacity to do, it may becalled 'positive judicial activism'. To this we must add adjudication which,when positive law is either not clear or not available, goes beyond what isnecessary to achieve clarity and consistency in law in a minimalist way. I callthis 'opportunistic activism'.

   Tom Campbell declared that “Judicial activism can be so wrong as to be treasonable, because it is a breach of trust and an abuse of judicial power that undermines the foundations of constitutional democracy”.[3] In using the term treason I am not imputing evil intent to judges or others whose conduct undermines the democratic rule of positive law. Often judicial activism is quite the reverse: a misguided attempt to do what is right, sometimes on a naive assumption that their moral views are shared by all reasonable people. This can make the culture of judicial activism dangerously self-confident, arrogant and self-righteous.[4]The conception of a formally good legal system is also fundamental to a particular sort of justice, formal justice, the justice of treating like cases alike in terms of pre-existent criteria. This sort of justice cannot be achieved unless there is an operative system of general rules impartially applied. Democracy is a system set up to handle and resolves these disagreements in so far as this is possible while still being able to have an operative set of rules which serve until such time as they are changed by appropriately democratic means.Tom Campbell suggested that judges who cannot bring themselves to enforce existing law ought to resign. At least in the straightforward cases of negative activism - failure to apply clear and relevant authoritative rules - judges always do have a choice. If applying a clear law goes against their moral convictions, then they can and should resign rather than put the law to one side or replace it with another.

    A decision is "substantively activist" if the result itreached is contrary to clear constitutional or statutory text or lacksaffirmative support in the text being interpreted, or is reached by overrulingprior binding precedent without adequate justification in light of applicablestare decisis rules or by distinguishing or limiting binding precedents ongrounds that were not material to the results reached in the prior cases.[5]

   The topic of judicial activism in Canada generates considerable disagreement. At a recent conference, retired Supreme Court of Canada Justice John Major stated that "there is no such thing as judicial activism in Canada."[6] In 2001, speaking in his capacity as the Canadian Alliance's Justice critic, the current federal Minister of Justice and Attorney General, Vic Toews, told Parliament that the Supreme Court has "engaged in a frenzy of constitutional experimentation that resulted in the judiciary substituting its legal and societal preferences for those made by the elected representatives of the people . . . [producing] legal and constitutional anarchy."[7] One prominent constitutional scholar fears that the debate on judicial activism in Canada has begun to produce excessive judicial deference that allows legislatures and officials to act without scrutiny by the judiciary concerning the effects of state action on vulnerable minorities.[8]Judge Frank Easterbrook opened with an ostensibly safe sentence: "Everyone scorns judicial activism, that notoriously slippery term."[9] Arthur Schlesinger Jr. introduced the term "judicial activism" to the public in a Fortune magazine article in January 1947.[10] Schlesinger's Judicial Activists believe that law and politics are inseparable. According to the Judicial Activists, Schlesinger writes, "The Court cannot escape politics: therefore, let it use its political power for wholesome social purposes."[11]Schlesinger suggests the layers of the clash: unelected judges versus democratically enacted statutes; results-oriented judging versus principled decisionmaking; strict versus creative use of precedent; democratic supremacy versus human rights; law versus politics; and other equally fundamental dichotomies.McWhinney identifies Holmes's "two-sided" view of the judicial role. First, there is the "judicial self-restraint" concept[12] Holmes espouses in his famous dissent in Lochner v. New York,[13]which amounts to a "presumption of constitutionality" for legislation even if a judge personally does not care for it.[14] Judicial self-restraint is at odds, though, with another component of Holmes' judicial philosophy: the "tradition of judicial activism, involving the notion that in certain areas of subject matter, notably the field of political and civil rights, the Court should look with a jealous eye on legislation cutting down or trenching on those rights."[15] McWhinney notes the oft-cited objection that judicial activism undermines the principle of majority rule, imposing "the will of the 'nine old men' on the prime representatives of the people, the legislature." When the judiciary refuses to be guided by original intent in its interpretation of the constitution, it exercises an extra-constitutional and arbitrary form of power. Such unchecked judicial supremacy is as threatening to liberty and democracy as the forms of tyranny against which it was itself designed as a safeguard.[16] the 'noble lie' that judges do not make law,[17]Judge Hutcheson authored the first recorded use of the term "judicial activism" in an opinion overruling a trial court decision by then-District Judge Skelly Wright, in the case of Theriot v. Mercer in 1989.[18]The issue, as these critics see it, is not one of liberalism versus conservatism, but one of representative democratic government versus judicial autocracy.The idea of judicial activism has been around far longer than the term.[19] Before the twentieth century, legal scholars squared off over the concept of judicial legislation, that is, judges making positive law.[20]Section 1 allows legislatures to justify reasonable limits on the rights that the court finds in the Charter. Yet, a majority of the Supreme Court has never held that a particular breach of section 7 was justified under section 1.[21]Section 33 of the Charter allows legislatures to enact laws that override certain Charter rights, including: the "fundamental freedoms" of freedom of religion, freedom of expression, freedom of the press, and freedom of association; the "legal rights" such as the right to be secure from unreasonable search and seizure, and the right not to be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned; and the equality rights.Section 43 of Criminal Code of Canada bolster the assertion made by the Chief Justice of Canada at a conference that "there is no clear demarcation between applying the law, interpreting the law, and making the law."[22]Striking Down Arguably Constitutional Actions of Other Branches Legal academics often describe judicial invalidation of legislative enactment as "judicial activism." As Greg Jone wrote, "At the broadest level, judicial activism is any occasion where a court intervenes and strikes down a piece of duly enacted legislation."[23] Professor Lino Graglia: "By judicial activism I mean, quite simply and specifically, the practice by judges of disallowing policy choices by other governmental officials or institutions that the Constitution does not clearly prohibit."[24] As Christopher Manfredi observes, "If judicial review evolves such that political power in its judicial guise is limited only by a constitution whose meaning the courts alone define, then judicial power is no longer itself constrained by constitutional limits."[25]Constitutional law precedents, meanwhile, are entitled to less deference "because the difficulty of amending the Constitution makes the Court the only effective resort for changing obsolete constitutional doctrine."[26]Judge Goodwin states this point more succinctly: Judicial activism means a decision one does not like.[27]

[下一页]
blog comments powered by Disqus

©Boxun News Network All Rights Reserved.
所有栏目和文章由作者或专栏管理员整理制作,均不代表博讯立场