Federal Judicial Appointments: An Appraisal of the First Mulroney Government's Appointments and the New Judicial Advisory Committees

Russell, Peter H.; Ziegel, Jacob S.

doi:10.2307/825700

Cited by 10 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Involvement with an opposition party was ascribed to 7.1 per cent of appointees (5.3 per cent “major” and 1.8 per cent “minor”). The data show that in the late 1980s, patronage remained an important factor in the appointment process, particularly in Saskatchewan, Manitoba, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and PEI (Russell and Ziegel, 1991: 20). Indeed, a former minister of justice in the Mulroney government, John Crosbie, acknowledged in a media interview that he had appointed Conservative activists to the bench during his tenure as minister (Makin, 2005).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In their study of federal judicial appointments in Canada from 1984 to 1988, Peter Russell and Jacob Ziegel indicated that one of the purposes of their study was to “establish the basis for a future comparison between the judicial appointments made before the introduction of the … judicial advisory committees and the appointments made after them” (1991: 8). Before the establishment of these screening committees, Russell and Ziegel found significant patronage existed in judicial appointments.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Exploring the Links between Party and Appointment: Canadian Federal Judicial Appointments from 1989 to 2003

et al. 2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Studies of federal judicial appointments made before 1988 discovered significant partisan ties between judicial appointees and the governments appointing them. In 1988, in response to criticism of these “patronage appointments,” the Mulroney government introduced screening committees to the process. This article explores the impact of these committees. Using information gained from surveys of legal elites, we trace the minor and major political connections of federal judicial appointees from 1989 to 2003 in order to determine whether patronage has continued despite the reform to the process. We discover that political connections continued to play an important role in who was selected for a judicial appointment. However, these connections were not quite as common as those found before 1988, and the new process does appear to have prevented the politically motivated appointment of completely unqualified candidates. Interestingly, our findings also suggest that the impact of patronage varies by region and interacts with other, newer influences, in particular, concerns for group representation on the bench. The paper concludes by briefly discussing these results in the context of the relationship between judicial selection and politics with a comparative perspective.Résumé. Les études sur les nominations judiciaires fédérales réalisées avant 1988 ont découvert des liens partisans étroits entre les juges nommés à la cour et les gouvernements les nommant. En 1988, en réponse aux critiques sur le favoritisme entourant les nominations, le gouvernement Mulroney a introduit des comités d'évaluation dans le processus. Cet article explore l'impact de ces comités. En utilisant de l'information recueillie lors de sondages menés auprès de la communauté légale, nous retraçons les connexions politiques mineures et majeures des attributaires judiciaires fédéraux de 1989 à 2003 en vue de déterminer si le favoritisme a persisté malgré la réforme du système. Nous découvrons que les connexions politiques continuent à jouer un rôle important dans la sélection des juges. Toutefois, ces connexions ne sont pas aussi importantes que celles qu'on a identifiées avant 1988 et le nouveau processus semble avoir réussi à prévenir les nominations partisanes de candidats entièrement non qualifiés. Les résultats de notre recherche suggèrent également que l'effet du favoritisme varie par région et dépend aussi d'autres facteurs plus nouveaux, en particulier le souci de représentation de certains groupes au sein de la magistrature. L'article conclut en discutant brièvement ces résultats dans le contexte de la relation entre la sélection judiciaire et la politique dans une perspective comparative.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Exploring the Links between Party and Appointment: Canadian Federal Judicial Appointments from 1989 to 2003

et al. 2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Looking at appointments by province helps to further unpack how party connection may adversely affect the likelihood that women will be appointed to the bench. Previous research has found that the number of judges with political connections varies dramatically by province (Hausegger et al, 2010; Russell and Ziegel, 1991). For example, whereas about 14 per cent of British Columbia's appointees had connections to the party in power between 1989 and 2003, this number was an astounding 90 per cent for Prince Edward Island (Hausegger et al, 2010: 643–646).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The influence of party connection on the selection of judges has long been a reality in Canada (Russell, 1987). While the appointment of blatantly underqualified party loyalists is no longer a concern in the way it was a few decades ago (Russell and Ziegel, 1991), recent scholarship has shown that party connection remains a prominent feature among the women and men chosen by the federal government to serve as judges (Forcese and Freeman, 2005; Hausegger et al, 2010; Riddell et al, 2008). Participation in a political party is not necessarily a negative attribute for a judicial candidate to possess.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Politics of Judicial Appointment: Do Party Connections Impede the Appointment of Women to Canada's Federally Appointed Courts?

Crandall

Lawlor

2017

Can J Pol Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The influence of party connection on the selection of judges has long been an issue in Canada This article considers whether such connections adversely affect the appointment of women judges to federally appointed courts. The answer appears to be yes. Using political donations as a proxy for party connection, the data analyzed here suggest that as the number of appointees with connections to the government rises, the number of women appointees falls. However, for appointments to provincial courts by the government of Ontario, the prevalence of political connections among judicial appointees is less prominent, suggesting that different systems of judicial appointment may help to lessen these effects.

show abstract

“…Treating the study of law and courts as a subfield of American politics makes even less sense than ever. Democratization, devolution, new constitutions, and constitutional reform of judicial selection have provided gender scholars an opportunity to apply their scholarly knowledge to public policy as Peter Russell did in Ontario (1990), Fiona Mackay (2005) and Alan Paterson have done in Scotland, and Kate Malleson and Hazel Genn have done in England 4 . Trenchant analyses do not appear exclusively in scholarly journals, but also in governmental and NGO reports and even documentary films (see political scientist Ruth Cowan's (2008) film, Courting Justice , about women in the South African judiciary).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Critical Perspectives on Gender and Judging

Kenney

2010

Pol & Gen

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

I began to write this essay as confirmation hearings opened for President Barack Obama's nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court, Judge Sonia Sotomayor, and long before he nominated Elena Kagan. The nominations have made the gender and ethnic identities of judges and senators alike salient. In their opening statements, senators burst with pride about a great country where anyone can achieve anything, regardless of gender, class, or ethnicity, while some equated empathy with prejudice and difference with partiality. In a New York Times Magazine interview the Sunday before, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg stressed the importance of more women on the bench (Bazelon 2009). Opponents' carefully orchestrated media attacks against Sotomayor, arguing that she lacked judicial temperament (too mean) and was racist, came straight from the misogynist playbook well thumbed from Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign. 1 I share Nancy Maveety's disappointment that the hearings squelched, rather than explored, the questions of what Martha Minow (1987) has so aptly named "the dilemma of difference"-how women can be both equal to and different from men-and the nature of judging, which has to do with how one's social location and life experiences inevitably shape judgment. The dullness of the actual hearings stood in sharp contrast to the euphoria in the Latino community where many sported the latest fashion: "Wise Latina Woman" T-shirts, dispelling any doubt about the symbolic importance of such appointments.

show abstract

Federal Judicial Appointments: An Appraisal of the First Mulroney Government's Appointments and the New Judicial Advisory Committees

Cited by 10 publications

References 0 publications

Exploring the Links between Party and Appointment: Canadian Federal Judicial Appointments from 1989 to 2003

Exploring the Links between Party and Appointment: Canadian Federal Judicial Appointments from 1989 to 2003

The Politics of Judicial Appointment: Do Party Connections Impede the Appointment of Women to Canada's Federally Appointed Courts?

Critical Perspectives on Gender and Judging

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About