• 2,99 €

Descrição da editora

In this reply, the authors assert that Professors Manfredi and Kelly's response to their original article either misses the point or is simply mistaken. The authors clarify the limited purpose of their original study, which was to assess the extent to which the Supreme Court is counter-majoritarian under the Charter. Manfredi and Kelly's interpretation of the available data either relies on inappropriate quantitative measures or draws overly fine distinctions between highly variable data sets. The burden of proof is on those who allege that the Court is engaged in judicial activism, and Manfredi and Kelly have not succeeded in demonstrating that the null hypothesis has been disproved. Dans leur replique, les auteurs soutiennent que la reponse des Professeurs Manfredi et Kelly rote malheureusement sa cible ou est tout simplement erronee. Les auteurs clarifient les vistes restreintes de leur etude originale, qui s'appliquait a decouvrir dans quelle mesure la Cour supreme agit de maniere anti-majoritaire en ce qui concerne la Charte des droits et libertes de la personne. L'interpretation des donnees disponibles par Manfredi et Kelly se base sur des mesures quantitatives inappropriees, ou effectue des distinctions trop delicates entre des ensembles de donnees hautement variables. Le fardeau de la preuve repose donc sur ceux qui pretendent que la Cour s'adonne a l'activisme judiciaire, et Manfredi et Kelly n'ont pas demontre que l'hypothese nulle a ete refutee.

GÉNERO
Profissional e técnico
LANÇADO
2004
1/agosto
IDIOMA
EN
Inglês
PÁGINAS
24
EDITORA
McGill Law Journal (Canada)
TAMANHO
290.7
KB

Mais livros de McGill Law Journal