The Shadow of Absurdity and the Challenge of Easy Cases: Looking Back on the Supreme Court Act Reference
The Supreme Court Law Review: Osgoode’s Annual Constitutional Cases Conference, Vol: 71, Issue: 1
2015
- 1Citations
- 1,469Usage
- 1Captures
Metric Options: Counts1 Year3 YearSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Citations1
- Citation Indexes1
- CrossRef1
- Usage1,469
- Downloads1,119
- 1,119
- Abstract Views350
- Captures1
- Readers1
Article Description
In the Supreme Court Act Reference, the Court advised that the appointment of its newest judge, Marc Nadon, was void ab initio. It concluded, as well, that the Court is an entrenched constitutional actor, whose governing statutes may be changed only through formal amendment. By any measure, the Reference was an exceptional constitutional moment. This article reviews what made it so, focussing on the case’s history, procedure, substance and public reception. The article situates the proceeding within a “perfect storm” of law and politics. It describes various dilemmas that the Court had to confront. And it offers three reasons explaining why the reaction to the Reference was unusually negative.
Bibliographic Details
Osgoode Hall Law School, York University
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know