This comparative legal analysis evaluates the issue of terrorism and how it has been dealt with respectively by the United States and Israeli Supreme Courts. Since the events of 9/11, combating terrorism has become one of the primary concerns of the US government while it is a matter that has pervaded Israeli policy since its birth as a nation-state. The analysis is centered on examining how each state‘s Supreme Court has confronted the issue with the Israeli Supreme Court using a ―Business as Usual‖ model and the US taking an ―Emergency Powers‖ approach. It is argued that terrorism is an ongoing issue that cannot be justified as an emergency and the US Court would do better in adopting Israel‘s method of adjudication in these matters. It is also suggested that the US could learn from Israel‘s policy towards torture as the US policy has largely been cruel and unsuccessful.

This dissertation engages previous research in political science and psychology by arguing for the importance of oral arguments from a communication perspective, examining justices' rhetorical discursive interaction in oral arguments, introducing Sensemaking as a new model of judicial decision making, and discussing the legal and cultural impact of justices' rhetorical discursive interaction in Morse v. Frederick, Kennedy v. Louisiana, and District of Columbia v. Heller. In contrast to the aggregate behavioral models and longitudinal studies conducted by political scientists and psychologists, this study examines these specific cases in order to gauge each justice's individual interaction in oral argument and to determine how certain justices may have controlled the discursive flow of information within oral arguments, which in turn may have influenced the Court's decision making ability. The dissertation begins with an introduction, providing an overview of the development and study of legal rhetoric from the Greeks to present day. A review of prior literature in law, political science, and psychology displays how fields outside of communication view oral arguments and reveals where communication may provide valuable contributions to the study of Supreme Court oral arguments. Theoretical and methodological approaches adopted for the study of oral arguments are discussed. Analysis within the dissertation begins with an overview of the inherent complexity found within oral arguments and applies the previously discussed theoretical and methodological approaches to the case of Morse v. Frederick as a means of determining theoretical and methodological validity. Following analysis of Morse v. Frederick, a second case, Kennedy v. Louisiana is analyzed to determine if similar results will occur. Final consideration is given to a third case, District of Columbia v. Heller, to understand whether justices' behavior may deviate in more socially and politically sensitive cases. The dissertation concludes with suggestions for lawyers and judges based upon this study's findings and makes recommendations to scholars for further areas of research.

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.

This dissertation examines the behaviour of the Supreme Court of Canada in cases involving electoral/referendum laws and the alleged violation of freedom of expression and/or the right to vote. In 2007, it declared that the judiciary should adopt "a natural attitude of deference" towards Parliament's decisions about the democratic process when determining, under section one of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, whether the infringement is reasonable and justified. This declaration reflected institutional concerns about judicial competence to review legislative choices in this area of public policy and the democratic legitimacy of it doing so. It was made even though the Court had found laws unconstitutional in a majority of the cases that it had heard to date. Deference is often simply equated with government 'wins' in court. Such an equation ignores the effect that the decision has on judicial reasoning. It sets the standard of review the court uses when applying the Oakes test, the framework within which the section 1 analysis occurs. It also establishes the standard of proof that the Crown must meet to demonstrate that an infringement is justified. The outcome of constitutional disputes can turn on the decision about deference, pointing to a need for structure and coherence in the judiciary's approach. A review of the Court's jurisprudence shows that this need has not been met. In spite of its importance to constitutional adjudication, the analytical process by which the decision is made has garnered little attention from those who study the Charter. This dissertation seeks to fill this gap by examining deference theory and the use of deference in disputes involving the democratic process and by proposing an approach for specific use in these cases. The approach links the decision to the nature of the legislation, the nature of the right and the nature of the parliamentary discourse that preceded the enactment or amendment of the impugned law. Before setting the standards of review and proof used during the Oakes test, courts should determine whether: they have the necessary competence and legitimacy to act; the right warrants stringent constitutional protection; and parliamentarians engaged in serious deliberations that included the Charter and the reasonableness of any infringements. / Thesis (Ph.D, Political Studies) -- Queen's University, 2011-12-23 12:12:53.51

There is no abstract available for this thesis.

The specialized role of the solicitor general has been a topic of much discussion and research within the past, but the task of the solicitor as amicus curiae has been overlooked. A content analysis of Court majority opinions and their corresponding solicitor general amicus briefs for the terms of 1987, 1995, and 2003, allows us to examine the flow of language from brief to opinion, as well at its possible incorporation into legal doctrine and the creation of law. Through implementing Crawdad Text Analysis System© software, the percentage of identical language contained in each corresponding set of documents is reported in the form of a resonance score. Invitation amicus briefs, which are extremely rare and have not been present much within past literature, were also examined in the same manner. Findings show small to medium resonance scores between amicus and Court opinions, with averages between 26 to 33 percent. Invitation amicus have a higher percent of language overlap with averages from 31 to 43 percent. The way the Court implements language contained in amicus briefs shows that the Court might not be as independent as scholars such as Dahl had previously thought.

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

In view of the ability of the Court to retain and increase its power in the face of criticism, a study of past historical precedents should furnish some guide to an assessment of the position of this branch of the government today.

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.