A review of the case of Alexander McLeod: recently determined in the Supreme Court of Judicature of the state of New York (1841)

Alexander McLeod, a British subject, was tried for the murder of Amos Durfee and as an accomplice in the burning of the steamer Caroline, in the Niagara River, during the Canadian rebellion in 1837-1838.

Driedger's 'Modern Principle' at the Supreme Court of Canada: Interpretation, Justification, Legitimization

Un résumé en français est également disponible

The Application of the Crime against Humanity Category in Simon Ruling from Argentinean Supreme Court

En Argentine, la mise en place des lois internationales sur les droits humains dans les tribunaux locaux et son impact ne peuvent être séparés de l’histoire récente, qui a vu commettre des crimes massifs pendant la dictature de 1976 à 1983. En 1987, la Cour suprême a voté « la loi de l’Obéissance due » aussi appelée « loi de l’impunité ». Puis, en 2005, cette loi a été déclarée invalide par une nouvelle décision de la Cour suprême, car contraire à celles sur les droits humains. Les principes de la loi internationale ont prévalu pour permettre une justice efficace, ce changement soulignant le rôle de la société civile. Étant donné les réclamations grandissantes pour plus de justice dans la société argentine, le rôle de la société civile est essentiel pour comprendre la transformation et l’accroissement de la valeur normative des lois sur les droits humains dans les Cours suprêmes argentines. L’action de la société civile internationale est liée aux processus sud-américains de démocratisation, surtout dans le domaine des droits humains. La lutte contre l’impunité n’a été rendue publique que très récemment, soit seulement à partir de 2003. Elle se traduit aujourd’hui dans le rôle grandissant de l’expertise juridique et éthique dans la mise en place des politiques publiques. En fait, l’influence de la nouvelle stratégie dépend largement de la transparence des administrations bureaucratiques, des valeurs et de la volonté politique du gouvernement. Le changement légal peut être analysé selon l’acteur à l’origine du changement, le mécanisme par lequel le changement se fait et le contexte qui fournit l’opportunité pour ce changement. Dans le présent article, nous nous concentrons sur les stratégies argumentatives présentées par les juges dans la description des évènements entourant la décision de 2005. Le but de cet article est d’essayer de lier les stratégies des sociétés civiles avec l’argumentation légale dans la décision de 2005. Ces stratégies poussent à surmonter l’obstacle juridique : le fait que les crimes contre l’humanité n’étaient pas codifiés dans la loi nationale quand ils se sont déroulés (et ne le sont toujours pas.)

Which Legal Standards Should Apply To Web-logs? The present legal position of Internet journals in the European iuris prudence in the light of the European Parliament Committee’s on Culture and Education report and Polish Supreme Court decision

The article discusses the present status of weblogs and examines whether legal standards applicable to traditional press and media should be applied to that specific forum. The analysis is based on two key documents: the Draft Report on the concentration and pluralism in the media in European Union (2007/2253(INI)) of the European Parliament Committee on Culture and Education presented in March 2008 and a landmark decision of the Polish Supreme Court from July 26, 2007 (IV KK 174/07) in the light of present judicial tendency in other European countries. The first of the mentioned documents calls for the “clarification of the legal status of different categories of weblog authors and publishers as well as disclosure of interests and voluntary labelling of weblogs”. It emphasizes that the “undetermined and unindicated status of authors and publishers of weblogs causes uncertainties regarding impartiality, reliability, source protection, applicability of ethical codes and the assignment of liability in the event of lawsuits”. The position of the European Parliament, expressed in the document, raises serious questions on the limits of freedom of thought and speech on the Internet and on the degree of acceptable state control. A recent Polish Supreme Court decision, which caused quite a stir in the Polish Internet community, seems to head in the very direction recommended by the EP Culture Committee. In a case of two editors of a web journal (“czasopismo internetowe”) called “Szyciepoprzemysku”, available on-line, accused of publishing a journal without the proper registration, the Polish Supreme Court stated that “journals and periodicals do not lose the character of a press release due solely to the fact that they appear in the form of an  Internet transmission”, and that ‘’the publishing of press in an electronic form, available on the Internet, requires  registration”. The decision was most surprising, as prior lower courts decisions declined the possibility to register Internet periodicals. The accused were acquitted in the name of the constitutional principle of the rule of law (art. 7 of the Polish Constitution) and the ensuing obligation to protect the trust of a citizen to the state (a conviction in this case would break the collateral estoppel rule), however the decision quickly awoke media frenzy and raised the fear of a need to register all websites that were regularly updated. The spokesman of the Polish Supreme Court later explained that the sentence of the Court was not intended to cause a mass registration of all Internet “periodicals” and that neither weblogs nor Internet sites, that were regularly updated, needed registration. Such an interpretation of the Polish press law did not appear clear based only on the original text of the judgment and the decision as such still raises serious practical questions. The article aims to examine the status of Internet logs as press and seeks the compromise between the concerns expressed by European authorities and the freedom of thought and speech exercised on the Internet.

The Supreme Court of Canada Ruling in Carter v. Canada: A New Era of End-of-Life Care for Canadians

La tribune de l'éditeur / Editor's Soapbox

Gardner; re BWW: Victorian Supreme Court makes landmark Australian ruling on tube feeding

• The Victorian Supreme Court has decided that artificial nutrition and hydration provided through a percutaneous gastrostomy tube to a woman in a persistent vegetative state may be withdrawn.
• The judge ruled, in line with a substantial body of international medical, ethical and legal opinion, that any form of artificial nutrition and hydration is a medical procedure, not part of palliative care, and that it is a procedure to sustain life, not to manage the dying process.
• Thus, the law does not impose a rigid obligation to administer artificial nutrition or hydration to people who are dying, without due regard to their clinical condition. The definition of key terms such as “medical treatment”, “palliative care”, and “reasonable provision of food and water” in this case will serve as guidance for end-of-life decisions in other states and territories.
• The case also reiterates the right of patients, and, when incompetent, their validly appointed agents or guardians, to refuse medical treatment.
• Where an incompetent patient has not executed a binding advance directive and no agent or guardian has been appointed, physicians, in consultation with the family, may decide to withdraw medical treatment, including artificial nutrition or hydration, on the basis that continuation of treatment is inappropriate and not in the patient’s best interests. However, Victoria and other jurisdictions would benefit from clarification of this area of the law

Multiple regime shifts in concurring and dissenting opinions on the U.S. Supreme Court

In a previous issue of this journal, Smyth and Narayan (2004) examine structural change in the level of consensus on the High Court of Australia. In this article we adopt a similar strategy to that employed in Smyth and Narayan (2004) to estimate both the number and location of structural breaks in concurring and dissenting opinions on the U.S. Supreme Court. Although it has commonly been believed that there has been one regime shift on the U.S. Supreme Court, corresponding to the breakdown in the consensual norm in the 1930s or 1940s, we find that there have been three breaks in consensus. We find that two of the three breaks in dissenting opinions correspond closely to the beginning of the terms of Taney and Stone as Chief Justice, with the third occurring in the middle of Chase's term. We find that two of the three breaks in concurring opinions correspond closely to the beginning of the terms of Taney and Hughes and that the third break in concurring opinions occurs in the middle of the Warren Court.

February 2010: United States Supreme Court Cases

http://digitalcommons.winthrop.edu/dacusdocsnews/1043/thumbnail.jpg

Sacredness of the constitutional text and interpretative heresy: the Brazilian Supreme Court decision on same-sex civil unions

The paper provides a close lecture of the arguments and methods of legal construction, employed in the extensive individual opinions written by the Justices of the Brazilian Supreme Court in the case which authorized the same sex civil union. After tracing an outline of the legal problem and his possible solutions, we analyze the individual opinions, showing their methodological syncretism, the use of legal methods and arguments in a contradictory way as well the deficiencies in the reasoning. The Justices use legal arguments, but do not meet the requirements of rationality in the decision-making. We have a rhetorical attempt that aims to satisfy the public opinion than to offer a comprehensive and coherent solution according the normative elements of the Brazilian Federal Constitution of 1988.

Information mining and visualization of data from the Brazilian Supreme Court (STF): a case study

EMAp - Escola de Matemática Aplicada

Sacredness of the constitutional text and interpretive heresy: the brazilian supreme court decision on same-sex unions

The paper provides a close lecture of the arguments and methods of legal construction, employed in the extensive individual opinions written by the Justices of the Brazilian Supreme Court in the case which authorized the same sex civil union. After tracing an outline of the legal problem and his possible solutions, we analyze the individual opinions, showing their methodological syncretism, the use of legal methods and arguments in a contradictory way as well the deficiencies in the reasoning. The Justices use legal arguments, but do not meet the requirements of rationality in the decision-making. We have a rhetorical attempt that aims to satisfy the public opinion than to offer a comprehensive and coherent solution according the normative elements of the Brazilian Federal Constitution of 1988.