A number of commentators have recently renewed a debate over the Supreme Court’s “activism,” criticizing the Court for overstepping its authority. On the Policy Options blog, Leonid Sirota responds.

Over at Maclean’s, I take issue with both the critics and the critics of the critics, elaborating on what judicial activism means and why it can be a useful concept.

There’s a whole lot not in the post, including a broader discussion on judicial “finality,” and the obvious implications my perspective may have for things like the appointments process. But, I think the “activism” debate can be useful, when properly specified. This forum is a good place for continuing that debate.

Photo by D. Gordon E. Robertson  / CC BY-SA 3.0 / modified from original

Avez-vous des commentaires sur l’article que vous venez de lire ? Rejoignez les discussions d’Options politiques en soumettant votre propre article ! Consultez ce lien pour savoir comment procéder.

Emmett Macfarlane photo

Emmett Macfarlane

Emmett Macfarlane is an associate professor of political science at the University of Waterloo. His research focuses on the intersection of governance, rights and public policy, with a particular emphasis on the policy impact of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Supreme Court of Canada.

Partager

Vous pouvez reproduire cet article d’Options politiques en ligne ou dans un périodique imprimé, sous licence Creative Commons Attribution.

Emmett Macfarlane photo

Emmett Macfarlane

Emmett Macfarlane is an associate professor of political science at the University of Waterloo. His research focuses on the intersection of governance, rights and public policy, with a particular emphasis on the policy impact of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Supreme Court of Canada.

Pour aller plus loin

This site is registered on wpml.org as a development site. Switch to a production site key to remove this banner.