Robert Zbíral 1 Democracy v Fundamental Rights: The Counter-majoritarian Difficulty • §picture of first year class from multicultural neighbourhood in Teplice published in local newspapers § §many (stupid) people reacted on Facebook and elsewhere § §is their behaviour covered by freedom of speech? § § 2 Scenario 1: throw a hand grenade into a classroom! Tablo prvňáků, které zveřejnil Teplický Deník, vyvolalo na Facebooku vlnu nenávisti. Tablo prvňáků, které zveřejnil Teplický Deník, vyvolalo na Facebooku vlnu nenávisti. §God etc. = natural rights §innate to all humans § §each person by herself = self-concious decision §morality? § §majority of the people = parliaments §by law (statute) §supermajority of the people = parliaments / referendums §by constitutional law (Bill of Rights) § §judges = courts §by (binding) case-law § § § 3 Who should decide about fundamental rights and their meaning? Výsledek obrázku pro individual §desecration of US flag was a crime in 48 out of 50 US states § §Mr. Johnson burned US flag and was sentenced to a year in prison § §Supreme Court (Texas v Johnson, 1989) §burning of a flag covered by freedom of speech §5 to 4 majority § § 4 Scenario 2: could you burn a flag? Tablo prvňáků, které zveřejnil Teplický Deník, vyvolalo na Facebooku vlnu nenávisti. Tablo prvňáků, které zveřejnil Teplický Deník, vyvolalo na Facebooku vlnu nenávisti. Výsledek obrázku pro burning us flag §Law 367/2011 Coll. §long-term unemployed must participate in a public work in order to maintain financial support §adopted in the House of Deputies by 108 votes (69 against) § §opposition asked for a review by the Constitutional Court § §Pl. ÚS 1/12 §law invalidated for a breach of Art. 9 para 1 of Czech Charter of FR (forced labour) §many dissenting opinions § § 5 Scenario 3: obligatory public works Tablo prvňáků, které zveřejnil Teplický Deník, vyvolalo na Facebooku vlnu nenávisti. Tablo prvňáků, které zveřejnil Teplický Deník, vyvolalo na Facebooku vlnu nenávisti. §judicial review = courts could strike down statutes adopted by parliaments (a body elected directly by the people) for its unconstitutionality §concrete judicial review = statute invalidated on the background of a concrete case (injury to an applicant) §abstract judicial review = statute invalidated without concrete case § §CMD coined by Alexander Bickel (The Least Dangerous Branch, 1962) § § §„The central function, and it is at the same time the central problem, of judicial review: a body that is not elected or otherwise politically responsible in any significant way is telling the people’ s elected representatives that they cannot govern as they would like“ (John Hart Ely) § §„The counter-majoritarian difficulty refers to the supposedly anti-democratic nature of judicial review, since it allows courts to overturn the handiwork of elected officials“ (Daniel Farber) § 6 The dilemma of counter-majoritarian difficulty §allegory of Ulysses and the Sirens § §People (Ulysses) are aware of the temptations of short-term preferences (song of the Sirens) on their long-term constitutional commitments (ship´s course), so they bind themselves to the Constitution (mast) and even if Ulysses protests (legislators accepting current opinions), courts (ropes) save him from losing his mind § 7 (Abstract) answer: Why judiciary shall have this power Výsledek obrázku pro ulysses sirens §supporters of JR: some rights (equality, human dignity etc.) must be protected from majoritarian decisions §critics: democracy is crucial, based on one man – one vote principle (legitimacy) §assumptions: open elections, fair legislative process §threat: tyranny of the majority §critics: in any case about a right there is a tyranny involved (someone wins or loses) §but supporters: the case of „discrete and insular minorities“ (United States v Carolene Products, 1938) § § 8 Value of different fundamental rights §all US citizens are equal but it is possible to separate according to race §separation obligatory in 17 US states §Supreme Court (Brown v Board of Education of Topeca, 1954) §„separate educational facilities are inherently unequal“ §unanimous decision § § 9 Scenario 4: separate but equal doctrine Tablo prvňáků, které zveřejnil Teplický Deník, vyvolalo na Facebooku vlnu nenávisti. Tablo prvňáků, které zveřejnil Teplický Deník, vyvolalo na Facebooku vlnu nenávisti. Výsledek obrázku pro separate but equal Výsledek obrázku pro separate but equal §supporters of JR: some rights (equality, human dignity etc.) must be protected from majoritarian decisions §critics: democracy is crucial, based on one man – one vote principle §assumptions: open elections, fair legislative process §threat: tyranny of the majority §critics: in any case about a right there is a tyranny involved (someone wins or loses) §supporters: the case of „discrete and insular minorities“ (United States v Carolene Products, 1938) •but: do the topical and decisional minorities overlap? (affirmative action un/supported by both blacks or whites) § § 10 Value of different fundamental rights §members of parliament v judges §directly elected members v appointed §dependency v insulation from public opinion §decision-making rules §majority rule in parliaments (representation) •safeguards against dominance of the majority §majority rule in courts •sometimes also safeguards (Czech CC: 9 out of 15 judges to invalidate statute) •but what is the justification of voting? • §intermezzo: do the courts always provide „more rights“? §Plessy v Ferguson (1896): establishment of the separate but equal doctrine § § 11 Rights and institutional (dis)advantages §New York adopted a regulation setting the max working hours of bakers to 10 hours/day (60 h/week) §Supreme Court (Lochner v New York, 1905) §breach of a freedom of contract (right to sell or purchase labour) §followed by an era in which the SC stroke down many laws regulating „economic liberty“ § § 12 Scenario 5: working conditions of bakers Tablo prvňáků, které zveřejnil Teplický Deník, vyvolalo na Facebooku vlnu nenávisti. Tablo prvňáků, které zveřejnil Teplický Deník, vyvolalo na Facebooku vlnu nenávisti. Výsledek obrázku pro lochner new york §supporters of JR §interpretation requires expertise (undetermined texts) •instruments such as proportionality test applied §detailed reasoning of the outcome provided §decision based on a concrete case §opponents of JR §members of parliament also justify their decisions §is the meaning of certain right really a legal issue? •concrete case unimportant in the end •some decisions rather have moral dimension? § § § 13 What is the meaning of rights? §abortion forbidden in many countries around the world §right of a women to decide about her body or right to life of an unborn child? §US Supreme Court (Roe v Wade, 1973) §woman´s right to privacy under due process clause prevailed §European Court of Justice (A, B and C v Ireland, 2010) §Art. 8 ECHR (right to privacy) does not guarantee right to abortion §Ireland may keep the ban on abortion § §Antonin Scalia: „Do we decide on texts and their interpretation or about value judgments?“ §maybe the latter are better left to the common man? § 14 Scenario 6: right to abortion Tablo prvňáků, které zveřejnil Teplický Deník, vyvolalo na Facebooku vlnu nenávisti. Tablo prvňáků, které zveřejnil Teplický Deník, vyvolalo na Facebooku vlnu nenávisti. §what if courts generally do not act against political majorities? §supported by empirical evidence (e.g. in the US); reasons: •judges appointed by democratically elected bodies •fear of backlash (constitutional changes), no compliance from other powers •judges with similar values as common man? §people generally have trust in courts §democratic legitimacy only part of the (whole) picture §but how far could courts go in order not to lose support? § 15 Dissolving counter-majoritarian difficulty Tablo prvňáků, které zveřejnil Teplický Deník, vyvolalo na Facebooku vlnu nenávisti. Tablo prvňáků, které zveřejnil Teplický Deník, vyvolalo na Facebooku vlnu nenávisti. 16 Ideological development of the US Supreme Court http://www.motherjones.com/wp-content/uploads/images/justices-motherjones.png 17 Support for the US Supreme Court § 18 Support for the US Supreme Court § Trend: Do you approve or disapprove of the way the Supreme Court is handling its job? 19 Trust in Czech Constitutional Court §is judicial review good or bad? §depends on perspective and concrete situations §disclaimer: our framework apply only to functioning democratic societies §allegory of judiciary as a bungee cord (Friedman) §courts could stray from the public opinion but eventually get back in line §weak judicial review as a solution? §court signals breach, then up to a parliament to remedy §e.g. the UK, Canada § 20 Conclusion Tablo prvňáků, které zveřejnil Teplický Deník, vyvolalo na Facebooku vlnu nenávisti. Tablo prvňáků, které zveřejnil Teplický Deník, vyvolalo na Facebooku vlnu nenávisti.