<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Duke Law Journal Volume 59 November 2009</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2009/11/duke-law-journal-volume-59-november-2009-number-2.html/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2009/11/duke-law-journal-volume-59-november-2009-number-2.html</link>
	<description>The Law, the Universe, and Everything</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 14 Feb 2012 14:44:18 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: No</title>
		<link>http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2009/11/duke-law-journal-volume-59-november-2009-number-2.html/comment-page-1#comment-66112</link>
		<dc:creator>No</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 03 Nov 2009 19:01:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.concurringopinions.com/?p=21820#comment-66112</guid>
		<description>David Lat was named in a defamation action; check the site www.abovethelaw.com .</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>David Lat was named in a defamation action; check the site <a href="http://www.abovethelaw.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.abovethelaw.com</a> .</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tuesday Round-up &#124; SCOTUSblog</title>
		<link>http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2009/11/duke-law-journal-volume-59-november-2009-number-2.html/comment-page-1#comment-66110</link>
		<dc:creator>Tuesday Round-up &#124; SCOTUSblog</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 03 Nov 2009 15:23:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.concurringopinions.com/?p=21820#comment-66110</guid>
		<description>[...] Concurring Opinions also links to the latest edition of the Duke Law Journal, which features both an article on the success of dissenting opinions that invoke federalism in influencing future cases and another piece on the many disparate constitutional theories often grouped together under the “originalist” label. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Concurring Opinions also links to the latest edition of the Duke Law Journal, which features both an article on the success of dissenting opinions that invoke federalism in influencing future cases and another piece on the many disparate constitutional theories often grouped together under the “originalist” label. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

