So this is happening! Many thanks to the reviewers, and to those who have read my proposal and sample chapter draft, and heard me present ideas that will be going into this over the years. I'm looking forward to sharing more as the manuscript takes shape.
So this is happening! Many thanks to the reviewers, and to those who have read my proposal and sample chapter draft, and heard me present ideas that will be going into this over the years. I'm looking forward to sharing more as the manuscript takes shape.
ICYMI: In the Alford case, the Supreme Court again ignores precedent on constitutional interpretation — this time, precedent that's barely a few weeks old. doubleaspect.blog/2026/05/04/s...
New post: there is no method to the madness of the Supreme Court of Canada's treatment of constitutional interpretation: cases decided weeks ago can be discarded in favour of decades' old ones, and no acknowledgment, let alone explanation, is given.
New post, responding to @emmettmacfarlane.com: the Supreme Court's cases on constitutional interpretation really are irredeemably inconsistent, and this matters — not just for theoretical purity. doubleaspect.blog/2026/05/07/i...
The Supreme Court keeps changing its approach to constitutional interpretation, with no acknowledgment or explanation
ICYMI: Those of us who oppose populist shortcuts in response to judicial incompetence or wilfulness do not owe the populists "options". doubleaspect.blog/2026/05/08/y...
New post: if you care about the Rule of Law, you need to work to make the Supreme Court of Canada care too — not give populists "options" for blowing it up. doubleaspect.blog/2026/05/08/y...
My latest for @jotwell.bsky.social is a review of @lewisgrahamlaw.bsky.social's forthcoming article on the use of s 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998 by UK courts. conlaw.jotwell.com/doctrine-by-...
doubleaspect.blog
There is no defence for the Supreme Court’s erratic approach to constitutional interpretation
Lewis Graham, Interpreting the Interpretive Obligation: Empirical Insights into the Use of Section 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998, __ Oxford J. Legal Stud. __ (Mar. 14, 2026).Leonid SirotaIt is not di...
conlaw.jotwell.com
The solution to the Supreme Court’s problems is long, hard work — not coddling populists
ICYMI: Perhaps the Supreme Court's comments on constitutional interpretation in Alford are just noise. But the thing is, so is everything it says on the topic. doubleaspect.blog/2026/05/06/t...
New post: can @pauldalyesq.bsky.social's "signal/noise" lens help us see more clearly through the SCC's cases on constitutional interpretation? I'm afraid not, because none of them provide signal.
We can’t just be discerning about which of the Supreme Court’s pronouncements on constitutional interpretation to pay attention. None of them mean anything.
We can’t just be discerning about which of the Supreme Court’s pronouncements on constitutional interpretation to pay attention. None of them mean anything.
