Virginia Law Review In Brief
posted by Virginia Law Review
In Brief, the online companion to the Virginia Law Review, recently published the following two essays:
Professor George Cohen’s essay takes an unorthodox position regarding the DOJ’s organizational prosecution policy.
His essay “aim[s] . . . not so much to defend the DOJ policy as to deflate the dominant criticisms and to refocus the debate.” He argues that “[t]he critics [of the Holder, Thomson, and McNulty Memos] seek to lay at the feet of the DOJ policy problems whose primary causes lie elsewhere, in places the critics may be reluctant to have us look.”
Professor Cohen writes further:
Justin Weinstein-Tull’s case comment examines the Supreme Court’s recent opinion in Gonzales v. Carhart.
In Gonzales v. Carhart (Carhart II), the Court delivered a setback to a woman’s right to choose by affirming the constitutionality of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 (“Ban Act”). In doing so, however, the Court enlarged the scope of congressional power. The Court deferred to Congress’s factual findings and allowed Congress to determine for itself that an exception for the health of the mother was unnecessary. This deference, although disheartening in Carhart II, is promising for future civil rights legislation.
In Brief’s next issue, scheduled for publication on August 6, will feature two essays on the subject of the legal response to recent mass catastrophes:
- Professor Kenneth S. Abraham (U.Va. Law) will publish an essay on the Hurricane Katrina insurance claims.
- Kenneth R. Feinberg will publish an essay comparing the approaches toward victim compensation that were taken following 9/11 and the Virginia Tech shootings.
July 30, 2007 at 8:30 am
Posted in: Law Rev (Virginia)
Print This Post
Leave a Reply