Some error occured while loading the Quick View. Please close the Quick View and try reloading the page.
In a ground-breaking study on the nature of judicial behaviour in the Supreme Court of Canada, Donald Songer, Susan Johnson, C.L. Ostberg, and Matthew Wetstein use three specific research strategies to consider the ways in which justices seek to make decisions grounded in "good law" and to show how these decisions are shaped within a collegial court.
The authors use confidential interviews with Supreme Court justices, analysis of their rulings from 1970 to 2005, and measures that tap their perceived ideological tendencies to provide a critical examination of the ideological roots of judicial decision making, uncovering the complexity of contemporary judicial behaviour.
Examining judicial behaviour through the lens of three different research strategies grounded in qualitative and quantitative methodologies, Law, Ideology, and Collegiality presents compelling evidence that political ideology is a key factor in decision making and a prominent source of conflict in the Supreme Court of Canada.
Donald R. Songer, professor of political science at the University of South Carolina, is the author of The Transformation of the Supreme Court of Canada: An Empirical Examination and Continuity and Change on the United States Courts of Appeals.
Susan W. Johnson is assistant professor of political science, University of North Carolina at Greensboro.
C. L. Ostberg is professor of political science, director of the Legal Scholars Program, University of the Pacific, Stockton, California, and co-author of Attitudinal Decision Making in the Supreme Court of Canada.
Matthew E. Wetstein is dean of Planning, Research and Institutional Effectiveness, San Joaquin Delta College, Stockton, California, and co-author of Attitudinal Decision Making in the Supreme Court of Canada.