Reforming the Supreme Court Appointment Process, 2004-2014: A 10-Year Democratic Audit
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
This paper analyzes the Supreme Court appointment process over the 10-year period from 2004 through the end of 2013. The paper conducts a democratic audit of the Supreme Court appointment process, not an evaluation of the judges appointed through this process. The paper first presents a short history of the Supreme Court appointments process between 2004 and 2013. It sets out the mechanisms under which each of the eight judicial appointments was made during this period. Next, it introduces the concept of a democratic audit and identifies the drivers of change to the appointments process. It argues that prior to 1992 proposed reforms to the Supreme Court amendment process were motivated by concerns about federalism: incorporating a role for the provinces in the appointment process. However, after the failure of the Charlottetown Accord (1992), the motivation changed and reform of the Supreme Court appointment process became part of a democratic reform agenda proposed first by the opposition Reform Party, the n by Liberal leader Paul Martin, both in his leadership campaign and during his tenure as Prime Minister, and finally by the Conservative Party led by Prime Minister Stephen Harper. This part of the paper also addresses an issue that did not factor into the reforms — any perceived deficiency in the quality of past appointments or concerns about the legitimacy of the Supreme Court itself. Since 1992, the key factors articulated as the basis for changing the appointment process have been (1) transparency; (2) accountability; and (3) public knowledge about the Supreme Court and its judges. These are the factors used for evaluation through this democratic audit. The next part of the paper conducts the democratic audit and finds that the reforms have largely failed to deliver the promised transparency and accountability. Conversely, the reforms have been very successful in serving a public education function about the Supreme Court and its work. The paper the n offers recommendations for “reforming the reforms” in order to achieve the goals of transparency and accountability in the appointment process, arguing that the government should publish a detailed protocol which would set out the qualifications, consultation to be followed, procedure for evaluation, etc. The paper also proposes a revamped advisory committee which would operate in a more open and transparent fashion and produce a report on its work. The public hearings of nominees should continue, but only if the Minister of Justice also
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,033 | 0,091 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,005 | 0,010 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,006 | 0,003 |
| Communication savante | 0,010 | 0,004 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,004 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,005 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».