« Curricular Reforms and New Governance | Main | Thanksgiving, Thursday(s), and... Gettysburg? »
Thursday, November 23, 2006
Thanksgiving for Law Reviews?
From all of us at Prawfs, I wanted to wish all our readers and contributors a bountiful and blessed Thanksgiving Day.
I also thought that, given the spirit of the day, we should be in the business of praise and thanks to our colleagues. Let me invite readers to participate in what I hope will be a fun activity. I'd like you to select a law review article or essay or review (other than your own of course) that was published between last Thanksgiving and this one, and explain why you think that publication is outstanding. Did it change the way you thought about a particular subject? Did it reveal information that we didn't know before that now helps us understand law and society better? Just give a few sentences to describe what you think its contribution is. It can be from any field so long as it was published in a law review, whether student-edited or peer-reviewed. With some luck, we'll remember to do this next Thanksgiving, and we'll start a new tradition...
Posted by Dan Markel on November 23, 2006 at 12:05 PM in Article Spotlight, Dan Markel, Legal Theory, Life of Law Schools | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c6a7953ef00d834fdffa269e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Thanksgiving for Law Reviews?:
» Tips for Negotiating Conversation at the Thanksgiving Table from Settle It Now Negotiation Blog
I kicked off the Thanksgiving holiday season last evening by having an argument with my friend and neighbor the rocket scientist about extraordinary rendition and the effect of immigrant workers on the economy. I knew I'd lost all sense of... [Read More]
Tracked on Nov 21, 2007 4:35:26 PM
Comments
If you will indulge (yet once again) someone from outside your field, I thought Larry Solum's article, 'The Supreme Court in Bondage: Constitutional Stare Decisis, Legal Formalism, and the Future of Unenumerated Rights,' was 'outstanding' [Solum, Lawrence B., "The Supreme Court in Bondage: Constitutional Stare Decisis, Legal Formalism, and the Future of Unenumerated Rights". University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law, Vol. 9, No. 1, October 2006 Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=933076].
I found Larry's 'neo-formalist' arguments for binding the Supreme Court to stare decisis quite persuasive. As he notes, 'the mainstream of constitutional theory is antiformalist,' and thus Larry's views face formidable opposition. Already intrigued by the doctrine of precedent (see http://www.quadrant.org.au/php/article_view.php?article_id=868), perhaps I was inclined to look with favor on his argument. Still, the clear exposition of a neo-formalist theory allows one to set it alongside instrumentalist and realist conceptions to better assess their respective virtues and vices.
Posted by: Patrick S. O'Donnell | Nov 23, 2006 1:56:28 PM
My own articles were great. Everyone else's were terrible, with the exception of some of my friends, who wrote articles that were okay.
Posted by: AnonLawProf | Nov 23, 2006 11:33:43 PM
Nicole Stelle Garnett, "The Neglected Political Economy of Eminent Domain," 105 Mich. L. Rev. 101 (2006): Catholic parishes and freeway construction in Chicago, Hummer plants in South Bend, and the "uncompensated increment" -- it's all here.
Posted by: Rick Garnett | Nov 27, 2006 11:10:54 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.
