41076 research outputs found
Sort by
In re: NFL Players Concussion Injury Litigation
Full text linkUSDC for the Eastern District of Pennsylvani
Climatologist Mann\u27s Defamation Suit Victory: Can it Resolve the Crisis of Expertise
Full text linkWhen a jury awarded one million dollars in punitive damages to climatologist Michael Mann, in his defamation suit against writer Mark Steyn (who accused Mann of scientific fraud), it was newsworthy, even surprising, because opinions regarding scientific matters are rarely actionable. And yet it was not seen as a groundbreaking event in terms of legal doctrine, since the outcome was easily justifiable— Steyn’s accusation was provably false. However, even if the Constitutional contours of defamation law did not change, the Mann verdict has far-reaching implications for a major contemporary social phenomenon, namely the so-called crisis of expertise, a term identifying a distrust of consensus science by a large segment of our society. That phenomenon is but a part of the current polarization between left and right in the United States, and the Mann verdict sends a message to those who would casually encourage distrust of a credible scientist. Any such constructive move toward resolving the crisis of expertise could help reduce the dangerous effects of ignoring scientific expertise, whether with respect to healthcare or protection of the environment. Mann’s victory is, therefore, exemplary of a legal decision with benefits, albeit indirect (the benefits have little to do with free speech doctrine), for social progress. Courts do not purport to evaluate scientific truth, but when a court decides that a scientist was unfairly attacked for manipulating data, there is at least a suggestion that the work was sound, even though a scientific position can always be questioned on scientific grounds.
The crisis of expertise was caused, in part, by disinformation on the internet that raised doubts about credible science and scientists. When, in our polarized society, people seem to live in two different worlds, restoring trust in scientific institutions can seem almost impossible. And when judges appear to be politically polarized, law seems an unlikely ally to restore that trust. Mann’s victory, however, demonstrates that courts can help remove artificial controversies from the field of genuine scientific disagreements, and thereby begin to resolve the crisis of expertise. We should therefore recognize its benefits for science, scientists, and the citizenry in an age of disinformation
Nourishing the Living Tree: Vincent MacDonald and His Constitutional Thought
Full text linkSince the enactment of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Canadian judges have increasingly approached the Constitution through a living constitutionalist lens, adapting the Constitution to contemporary realities and treating the text as but one interpretive modality alongside purpose and context. The Supreme Court has rooted this living constitutionalism in the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council’s judgment, Edwards v Attorney General of Canada, wherein Lord Sankey introduced the metaphor of the “living tree.” Justice Robert Sharpe and Professor Patricia McMahon have suggested that the “living tree metaphor remained a forgotten footnote until 1982.” Indeed, more formalist approaches towards both constitutional and statutory interpretation endured well into the 20th century. In this article, I argue that Vincent MacDonald, who served, inter alia, as Dean of Dalhousie Law School and then as a Justice of the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia, did much to keep living constitutionalism alive during the mid-20th century. Drawing on MacDonald’s published writings and jurisprudence as well as on a wealth of archival sources, I argue that MacDonald articulated and implemented a robust vision of living constitutionalism at a time when many of his peers advocated for a return to the original intentions of the Fathers of Confederation. MacDonald advocated for a type of living constitutionalism known as common law constitutionalism, based upon respect for precedent, recognition of judicial discretion, and appreciation for clear legal reasoning. In laying out the tenets of MacDonald’s constitutional thought and contrasting his thought with that of his contemporaries, I complicate the existing narrative on Canada’s 20th century constitutional development.
Depuis l’adoption de la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés, les juges canadiens abordent de plus en plus la Constitution dans une optique de constitutionnalisme vivant, en adaptant la Constitution aux réalités contemporaines et en traitant le texte comme une simple modalité d’interprétation parmi d’autres, au même titre que l’objet et le contexte. La Cour suprême a fondé ce constitutionnalisme vivant sur l’arrêt Edwards c. Procureur général du Canada rendu par le Comité judiciaire du Conseil privé, dans lequel Lord Sankey a introduit la métaphore de « l’arbre vivant ». Le juge Robert Sharpe et la professeure Patricia McMahon ont fait remarquer que « la métaphore de l’arbre vivant est restée une note de bas de page oubliée jusqu’en 1982 ». En effet, des approches plus formalistes de l’interprétation de la Constitution et des lois ont perduré jusqu’au 20e siècle. Dans cet article, je soutiens que Vincent MacDonald, qui a notamment été doyen de l’École de droit de Dalhousie, puis juge à la Cour suprême de Nouvelle-Écosse, a beaucoup contribué à maintenir le constitutionnalisme vivant au milieu du 20e siècle. En m’appuyant sur les écrits publiés de MacDonald, sur la jurisprudence et sur de nombreuses sources d’archives, je soutiens que MacDonald a élaboré et mis en oeuvre une vision solide du constitutionnalisme vivant à une époque où bon nombre de ses pairs préconisaient un retour aux intentions initiales des Pères de la Confédération. MacDonald prônait un type de constitutionnalisme vivant connu sous le nom de constitutionnalisme de common law, fondé sur le respect des précédents, la reconnaissance du pouvoir discrétionnaire des juges et l’appréciation d’un raisonnement juridique clair. En exposant les principes de la pensée constitutionnelle de MacDonald et en la comparant à celle de ses contemporains, je complexifie le récit existant sur le constitutionnalisme évolutif du Canada au 20e siècle
Kelvin Rosa v. Administrator East Jersey State Prison
Full text linkUSDC for the District of New Jerse
