
I won't be posting anything during the Christmas break. I'll be posting again during the second week of January when classes resume.
Remarks and observations concerning American law and cultural studies as it relates to courses taken by students in the University of Osnabrück's and University of Münster's foreign law programs.
In a speech to the Canadian Bar Association yesterday, the country's top judge declared access to justice "a basic right" for Canadians, like education or health care. Although [Chief Justice Beverely] McLachlin has spoken out about the problem in the past, she sharpened her remarks yesterday and went further than she has before, citing what she described as an "increasingly urgent situation." The justice system risks losing the confidence of the public when "wealthy corporations," or the poor, who qualify for legal aid, have the means to use the court system, she said, noting that for "middle-class" Canadians, resolving a legal problem of any significance often requires taking out a second mortgage or draining their life savings.Others have argued that the problem is "money grubbing" lawyers who are charging excessive fees and lack principles.
Ronald Grunstein, a professor in Sydney, Australia, specializing in human sleep physiology, investigated 15 cases of “judicial sleepiness” around the world. His conclusion: Judges should be more actively monitored for falling asleep on the bench, a problem that could have consequences in the courtroom. The study is included in the current issue of Sleep, the official journal of the Associated Professional Sleep Societies. Here’s the 26-page study.
“The question is, ‘Who ought to make that decision, the Congress or the commanders?,’’ Mr. Bush said. “As you know, my position is clear – I’m the commander guy.”That's right, the Constitution might say that Bush is the Commander-in-Chief, but in his mind he is simply "the commander guy."
In addition, in any constitutional democracy government measures against terrorism and suspects of terrorism ought to be subject to review by an independent and neutral institution just as in non-exceptional cases. When civil liberties are concerned, the appropriate institution is the judiciary. Governments tend to invoke the grand values when it comes to fighting terrorism, and they paint gloomy pictures in order to justify extraordinary means. Courts operate from a certain distance, do not have to look to the next election, and can employ a more sober view. There is no good reason to exempt anti-terror measures from judicial scrutiny. In delicate cases in-camera procedures are better than no judicial control at all.
if Canadian judges felt compelled to impose popular verdicts and sentences to ensure their re-election, “it could really destroy the very best traditions of an independent judiciary. I think it would be a tragic initiative for the administration of justice.”The Chief Justice also cautioned that money needed to run judicial campaigns could lead to abuse.
In an on Federal News Radio Thursday on the fifth anniversary of the US military prison, Stimson predicted that "when corporate CEOs see that those firms are representing the very terrorists who hit their bottom line in 2001 those CEO's are going to make those law firms choose between representing terrorists or representing reputable firms." The former Navy lawyer said "It's shocking...The major law firms in this country...are out there representing detainees."Advocates for such things as the Rule of Law and fairness immediately criticized Stimson. As the current American Bar Association President rightfully said,
Lawyers represent people in criminal cases to fulfill a core American value: the treatment of all people equally before the law. To impugn those who are doing this critical work -- and doing it on a volunteer basis -- is deeply offensive to members of the legal profession, and we hope to all Americans. The American Bar Association supports lawyers who give of their time and expertise defending those involved in legal actions. In fact it is one of the basic tenets of the Association's Second Season of Service, that lawyers should perform pro bono and volunteer work.A Defense Department spokesperson quickly backed away from Stimson's comments saying they did not reflect the official view of the Department. Let's hope so. Stimson himself eventually tried to reverse himself using the age-old excuse "my comments were taken out of context." Right.
A steady drop in the number of judgments produced by the Supreme Court of Canada hit a striking new low in 2006, with the court rendering just 59 decisions. Statistics compiled by The Globe and Mail show a total that is dramatically lower than years such as 1990, when the court rendered 144 rulings, and 1993, when it handed down 138 rulings.This decrease looks remarkably similar to what is taking place in the U.S. As the New York Times reported last month:
The number of cases the court decided with signed opinions last term, 69, was the lowest since 1953 and fewer than half the number the court was deciding as recently as the mid-1980s.