Baker argues that coordinate interpretation - a model which requires both elected and appointed officials to interpret the Charter - allows for the creation of a more robust democracy, alleviating some of the tension between constitutionalism and democracy while limiting judicial activism. Drawing on literature from Montesquieu to recent court decisions, Not Quite Supreme gives an extensive critique of both Canadian and American judicial models and explores the tensions between the separation of powers in both countries. Not Quite Supreme is a fresh and substantial contribution to the debate, advancing a new argument in support of a more diverse tradition of legal decision making in Canada that makes the constitution, rather than individual decisions of the Court, its cornerstone.
Dennis Baker is an assistant professor of political science at the University of Guelph.
Acknowledgments Introduction: Sharing Interpretive Power; 1 Judicial Supremacy, Dialogue Theory, and Coordinate Interpretation; 2 Explaining the Hostility to Coordinate Interpretation; 3 The Separation of Powers in Canada: "Partial Agency" or Watertight Compartments"?; 4 The Separation of Powers in Canada: "Fusion" or "Ambivalence"?; 5 The Ambivalent Judicial Role in the Separation of Powers; 6 Legal Pluralism after the Supreme Court Decides; 7 Judicial Remedies and the Separation of Power; Conclusion: Some Final Words about the "Final Say" Notes; Bibliography; Index