The presence of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in the Constitution of Canada has transformed the historic discourse about what types of people should be appointed to the Supreme Court and the manner in which they should be selected. During the period between 1949, when the Supreme Court replaced the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in Britain as Canada's highest appellate body, and the Charter's entrenchment in 1982, the debate centered almost exclusively on questions of federalism. Specifically, the provinces argued that in a federal country, it is inappropriate that the status and composition of the court of last resort be left to the sole discretion of the central government. The Charter, with its enumeration of a variety of social categories, has produced new demands that the Court be more socially representative. Feminist legal scholars and women’s advocacy groups claim that a more representative judiciary in general and Supreme Court in particular would perform both symbolic and instrumental functions, while ethno cultural organizations have to date concentrated almost solely upon the symbolic dimension. By contrast, claims for self-government and separate justice systems illustrate that many aboriginal leaders believe their peoples’ grievances can best be met through disengagement from, rather than further integration into, Canadian political and legal processes. The Charter's presence also has conditioned demands for are formed appointment process. Now that the Court is to serve as the arbiter of citizen-state relations, many suggest, it is improper for the state to have sole control over who is appointed to that body, and therefore a more participatory and pluralistic appointment process is advocated. Clearly, these two broadly-defined reform agendas can conflict with one another. While the provinces demand more diffuse government involvement in the appointment of judges, those concentrating on the Court's Charter responsibilities believe that the state already unduly dominates the process. However, the current debate has further, largely unexplored consequences for potential reform. The failure of most participants in the debate, be they governments, scholars or advocacy groups, to articulate coherent approaches to questions of jurisprudential theory, combined with the difficulties inherent in applying the concept of representation to a judicial body, renders their critiques less valuable as guides to reform. Worse, their inadequate treatment of these issues often results in such critics undermining the legitimacy of the institution whose reform they seek. / Arts, Faculty of / Political Science, Department of / Graduate

Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis (IUPUI) / This study employs an ideological rhetorical analysis to investigate three United States Supreme Court decisions concerning the liberties of the LGBT community. An analysis of the rhetoric from these cases for both the majority and dissenting opinions is conducted. These artifacts include Lawrence v. Texas (2003), United States v. Windsor (2013), and Obergefell v. Hodges (2015). The purpose of this study is to analyze the rhetoric of these cases to understand the themes undergirding decisions about cases concerning the LGBT community. Themes of liberty, fundamental rights, equal protection, power, and polarization emerge in this study. Ultimately, it is determined that two groups are impacted by these decisions, these groups include the LGBT community and religious members who deem homosexuality as immoral.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

America is diverse in its culture of ideas and ways of life. This makes for a complex negotiation of issue positions and justifications when attempting to resolve public issues. It is essential therefore, that organizations not only understand but also cater to and adapt to the variety of cultural expectations and interpretations that may guide their various stakeholder publics when creating messages about controversial issues. One of the most controversial issues our society faces today is affirmative action. The rationales for the different stances people take on this topic vary greatly, revealing both opportunities and barriers to resolve a long-standing, contentious political issue. This thesis describes and analyzes reactions to two 2003 Supreme Court cases that examined the University of Michigan's affirmative action admissions policies: Gratz, et al. v. Bollinger, et al. and Grutter et al v. Bollinger, et al. The cases were the first time the Supreme Court had addressed affirmative action since the 1978 Bakke case. It was also the first time that the Court would debate whether or not diversity is truly a compelling state interest and what constitutes a fair and legal process by which to achieve it. Mediated accounts of the debate were examined in order to offer insight into contemporary interpretations of a recurring issue. By looking at how the media framed the issue, policymakers, politically-involved citizens, public relations practitioners can better understand the political climate in which they work, and thereby allowing them to better craft their communication efforts. Cultural Topoi, developed from Cultural Theory was used as a lens through which to examine the complexity of American political principles in these cases and values in this changing landscape of social expectations and public policy. / Master of Arts

Studies of the Supreme Court consistently show that the Office of the Solicitor General enjoys remarkable success before the Supreme Court, both at the certiorari stage and at the merits stage. These studies offer a variety of explanations for Solicitor General success, but fail to portray accurately the Office of the Solicitor General and to account for variations in governmental success. This paper seeks to continue the exploration of governmental success. By looking at the Office of the Solicitor General as a series of individuals with distinct characteristics rather than as a single entity, and by accounting for various situational dynamics, I attempt to explain the variations in executive success.

This study has two purposes: first, to test the validity of the personal attribute model in explaining judicial voting behavior outside its original cultural context; second, to explain the variation in justice's voting behavior in the Canadian Supreme Court. For the most part, the result arrived in this study supports the validity of the model in cross-cultural analysis. The result of multiple regression analysis shows that four variables, region, judicial experience prior to appointment, political party of appointing Prime Minister, and tenure account for 60 percent of the variations in justice's voting behavior. This result, hence, provides an empirical finding to the development of the personal attribute model in explaining justices' voting behavior.

This study analyzes activist behavior of Supreme Court justices in 132 decisions which struck down congressional statutes as unconstitutional in 1789-1990. Analysis of the justices' activist rates and liberalism scores demonstrate that these votes are ideologically based. Integrated models containing personal attribute and case factor variables are constructed to explore the votes as activist behavior. The same models are also tested with a new dependent variable constructed to measure the nullification votes as liberal votes. The models which explain the votes as ideological responses better explain the votes than the models which explain the votes as activism or restraint. The attribute variables offer better explanation in the late 20th century models and the case factors offer better explanation in the early period models.