This article examines the impact of lawyer capability on the decisionmaking of the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC). Extending prior attorney capability studies of U.S. judicial decisionmaking, we test three lawyer variables: prior litigation experience, litigation team size, and Queen's Counsel designation. We find that the first two variables have a statistically significant and positive relationship with the SCC's decisions in non‐reference‐question cases from 1988 to 2000. Moreover, this relationship persists even after controlling for party capability, issue area, and judicial policy preferences.

. This study seeks to add to the current understanding of the political nature of the Supreme Court of Canada. We analyze a data set consisting of all nonunanimous published Supreme Court decisions for the period 1949 to 2000. A prior study by Tate and Sittiwong (1989) suggested a model of judge attributes for the period 1949 to 1985. We build on that analysis by extending the time period to 2000, which allows the impact of gender also to be assessed. We find that since the Court gained substantial docket control, the types of cases the Court hears has changed from the period studied by Tate and Sittiwong. In the more recent period, civil rights and liberties cases are much more substantial in number. We conclude some of the variables in the Tate and Sittiwong study may be time bound and we suggest a new model of attitudinal voting.Résumé. Cet étude cherche de augmenter le savoir courant du le nature politique du Cour suprême du Canada. Nous analysons un ensemble de données non unanime compose de tout décisions publié du Cour suprême entre les années 1949 à 1985. Une enquête précède fait par Tate et Sittiwong (1989) a proposé un modèle des attributs des juges pour la période entre 1949 à 1985. Nous poursuivons laquelle analyse pour prolonger la période du temps jusqu'à 2000, ce que on permettre évalue l'effet du sexe aussi. Nous trouvons que comme le Cour a conquis considérable control du registre, les gendres dossier entendre par le Cour ont changé depuis le période de enquête de Tate y Sittiwong. Pendent le période plus récent les dossiers concernant les droits civiles et libertés sont beaucoup plus nombreux. Nous concluons que possiblement, quelques variables de l'enquête du Tate et Sittiwong soient liées par le temp et nous proposent un modèle neuf des votes attitudinal.

No abstract

While many of the decisions of federal district court judges involve the routine application of settled legal rules, a significant minority of their decisions present the judges with the opportunity to engage in judicial policy making. A considerable body of literature suggests that when faced with policy-making opportunities, the policy preferences of the judges exert a significant impact on the nature of those decisions. The present study explores the question of whose preferences are manifested in the policy-relevant decisions of the district court judges. In particular, we seek to determine the relative impact of the preferences of the major elites involved in the selection of federal district judges: the appointing president, home state senators of the president's party, and home state elites outside the Senate who are consulted when a president makes an appointment from a state whose Senate delegation is in the hands of the opposition party.The analysis is based on all published decisions of the district courts in civil liberties, economic and labor, and criminal procedure cases decided between 1961 and 1995. We find that contrary to the expectations derived from the existing literature on district judge appointments, the political preferences of the appointing presidents are most closely related to the policy relevant decisions of the judges.

Abstract.While there is an extensive literature on the causes of dissensus on appellate courts in the US, few empirical studies exist of the causes of dissent in Canadian Supreme Court. The current study seeks to close that gap in the literature, proposing and then testing what we call a Canadian model of dissent. We find that the likelihood of dissent is strongly related to four broad factors that appear to exert independent influence on whether the Court is consensual or divided: political conflict, institutional structure, legal ambiguity in the law and variations in the leadership style of the chief justice.Résumé.Les causes de dissension dans les cours d'appel aux États-Unis font l'objet de nombreux articles et publications, mais il existe très peu d'études empiriques sur les causes de dissidence à la Cour suprême du Canada. La présente étude vise à combler cette lacune en proposant, un modèle canadien de dissension, puis en le mettant à l'épreuve. Nous avons constaté que le risque de dissension est fortement lié à quatre facteurs genéraux qui semblent exercer une influence indépendante, que la Cour soit en accord ou divisée. Ces facteurs sont le conflit politique, la structure institutionnelle, la présence d'une ambiguité juridique dans la loi et le style de direction du juge en chef.