<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	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/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Concurring Opinions &#187; Southern California Law Review</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/author/Southern-California-Law-Review/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.concurringopinions.com</link>
	<description>The Law, the Universe, and Everything</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 14 Feb 2012 14:08:32 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Southern California Law Review, 82:5 (July 2009)</title>
		<link>http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2010/01/southern-california-law-review-825-july-2009.html</link>
		<comments>http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2010/01/southern-california-law-review-825-july-2009.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 08 Jan 2010 11:35:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Southern California Law Review</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Law Rev (S Cal)]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.concurringopinions.com/?p=23877</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p></p>
<p>Southern California Law Review, 82:5 (July 2009)</p>
<p>Articles</p>
<p>George D. Brown, &#8220;Counter-Counter-Terrorism via Lawsuit&#8221;—The Bivens Impasse,  82 S. Cal. L. Rev. 841</p>
<p>Anne Joseph O&#8217;Connell, Vacant Offices: Delays in Staffing Top Agency Positions,  82 S. Cal. L. Rev. 913</p>
<p>Notes</p>
<p>Marissa Renée Geannette, &#8220;[J]udicial [I]mperialism&#8221;? The South African Litigation, The Political Question Doctrine, and Whether The Courts Should Refuse to Yield to Executive Deference in Alien Tort Claims Act Cases,  82 S. Cal. L. Rev. 1001</p>
<p>Justin Tyler Hughes, Equity Compensation and Informant Bounties: How Tying the Latter to the Former May Finally Alleviate the Securities Fraud Predicament in America,  82 S. Cal. L. Rev. 1043</p>
]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><img src="http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/images/Scal-logo2.jpg" alt="S.Cal.L.Rev Logo" width="525" height="87" /></p>
<p><a title="Southern California Law Review 82:5" href="http://law.usc.edu/why/students/orgs/lawreview/Volume82Number5.cfm">Southern California Law Review, 82:5 (July 2009)</a></p>
<p><strong>Articles</strong></p>
<p>George D. Brown, <a href="http://law.usc.edu/why/students/orgs/lawreview/G.BrownCounter-Counter-Terrorism.cfm">&#8220;Counter-Counter-Terrorism via Lawsuit&#8221;—The <em>Bivens</em> Impasse</a>,  82 S. Cal. L. Rev. 841</p>
<p>Anne Joseph O&#8217;Connell, <a href="http://law.usc.edu/why/students/orgs/lawreview/A.OConnellVacantOffices.cfm">Vacant Offices: Delays in Staffing Top Agency Positions</a>,  82 S. Cal. L. Rev. 913</p>
<p><strong>Notes</strong></p>
<p>Marissa Renée Geannette, <a href="http://law.usc.edu/why/students/orgs/lawreview/M.GeannetteJudicialImperialism.cfm">&#8220;[J]udicial [I]mperialism&#8221;? The South African Litigation, The Political Question Doctrine, and Whether The Courts Should Refuse to Yield to Executive Deference in Alien Tort Claims Act Cases</a>,  82 S. Cal. L. Rev. 1001</p>
<p>Justin Tyler Hughes, <a href="http://law.usc.edu/why/students/orgs/lawreview/J.HughesEquityCompensationAndInformantBounties.cfm">Equity Compensation and Informant Bounties: How Tying the Latter to the Former May Finally Alleviate the Securities Fraud Predicament in America</a>,  82 S. Cal. L. Rev. 1043</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2010/01/southern-california-law-review-825-july-2009.html/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Southern California Law Review, 82:2 (January 2009)</title>
		<link>http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2009/02/southern_califo_6.html</link>
		<comments>http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2009/02/southern_califo_6.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 13 Feb 2009 22:35:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Southern California Law Review</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Law Rev (S Cal)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Law Rev Forum]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.solove.org/archives/2009/02/southern-california-law-review-822-january-2009.html</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p></p>
<p>Southern California Law Review, 82:2 (January 2009)</p>
<p>In Memoriam</p>
<p>Rich Chacon, Erwin Chemerinsky, James B. Curtis, Susan Estrich, Michael J. Graetz, Louise LaMothe &#038; Michael Sims,  A Tribute to Professor Charles H. Whitebread, 82 S. Cal. L. Rev. 173 (2009)</p>
<p>Articles</p>
<p>Richard H. McAdams, Beyond the Prisoners’ Dilemma: Coordination, Game Theory, and Law, 82 S. Cal. L. Rev. 209 (2009)</p>
<p>Gerald L. Neuman, The Extraterritorial Constitution After Boumediene v. Bush, 82 S. Cal. L. Rev. 259 (2009)</p>
<p>Notes</p>
<p>Andrew C. Elken, Rethinking the Material Adverse Change Clause in Merger and Acquisition Agreements: Should the United States Consider the British Model?, 82 S. Cal. L. Rev. 291 (2009)</p>
<p>Michael Reynolds, Depictions of the Pig Roast: Restricting Violent Speech Without Burning the House, 82 S. Cal. L. Rev. 341 (2009)</p>
]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><IMG alt="Southern California Law Review" hspace=0 src="http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/images/Scal-logo2.jpg"></p>
<p><a href="http://law.usc.edu/students/orgs/lawreview/Volume82Number2.cfm">Southern California Law Review, 82:2 (January 2009)</a></p>
<p><strong>In Memoriam</strong></p>
<p>Rich Chacon, Erwin Chemerinsky, James B. Curtis, Susan Estrich, Michael J. Graetz, Louise LaMothe &#038; Michael Sims, <a href=" http://law.usc.edu/students/orgs/lawreview/EtAlCharlesWhitebreadTribute.cfm"> A Tribute to Professor Charles H. Whitebread</a>, 82 S. Cal. L. Rev. 173 (2009)</p>
<p><strong>Articles</strong></p>
<p>Richard H. McAdams, <a href=" http://law.usc.edu/students/orgs/lawreview/R.McAdamsBeyondthePrisonersDilemma.cfm">Beyond the Prisoners’ Dilemma: Coordination, Game Theory, and Law</a>, 82 S. Cal. L. Rev. 209 (2009)</p>
<p>Gerald L. Neuman, <a href=" http://law.usc.edu/students/orgs/lawreview/G.NeumanTheExtraterritorialConstitution.cfm">The Extraterritorial Constitution After <em>Boumediene v. Bush</em></a>, 82 S. Cal. L. Rev. 259 (2009)</p>
<p><strong>Notes</strong></p>
<p>Andrew C. Elken, <a href=" http://law.usc.edu/students/orgs/lawreview/A.ElkenTheMaterialAdverseChangeClause.cfm">Rethinking the Material Adverse Change Clause in Merger and Acquisition Agreements: Should the United States Consider the British Model?</a>, 82 S. Cal. L. Rev. 291 (2009)</p>
<p>Michael Reynolds, <a href=" http://law.usc.edu/students/orgs/lawreview/M.ReynoldsRestrictingViolentSpeech.cfm">Depictions of the Pig Roast: Restricting Violent Speech Without Burning the House</a>, 82 S. Cal. L. Rev. 341 (2009)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2009/02/southern_califo_6.html/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Southern California Law Review, 82:1 (November 2008)</title>
		<link>http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2009/01/southern_califo_5.html</link>
		<comments>http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2009/01/southern_califo_5.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 26 Jan 2009 02:28:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Southern California Law Review</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Law Rev (S Cal)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Law Rev Forum]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.solove.org/archives/2009/01/southern-california-law-review-821-november-2008.html</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p></p>
<p>Southern California Law Review, 82:1 (November 2008)</p>
<p>Articles</p>
<p>Anne L. Alstott, Is the Family at Odds with Equality? The Legal Implications of Equality for Children, 82 S. Cal. L. Rev. 1 (2008)</p>
<p>Scott A. Keller, How Courts Can Protect State Autonomy from Federal Administrative Encroachment, 82 S. Cal. L. Rev. 45 (2008)</p>
<p>Notes</p>
<p>Brian Cook, Clearing a Path for Digital Development: Taking Patents in Eminent Domain Through the Adoption of Mandatory Standards, 82 S. Cal. L. Rev. 97 (2008)</p>
<p>Noelle Formosa, Ganging Up on RICO: Narrowing Gonzales v. Raich to Preserve the Significance of the Jurisdictional Element as a Constitutional Limitation in the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 82 S. Cal. L. Rev. 135 (2008)</p>
]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><IMG alt="Southern California Law Review" hspace=0 src="http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/images/Scal-logo2.jpg"></p>
<p><a href="http://law.usc.edu/students/orgs/lawreview/Volume82Number1.cfm">Southern California Law Review, 82:1 (November 2008)</a></p>
<p><strong>Articles</strong></p>
<p>Anne L. Alstott, <a href="http://law.usc.edu/students/orgs/lawreview/A.AlstottIstheFamilyatOddswithEquality.cfm">Is the Family at Odds with Equality? The Legal Implications of Equality for Children</a>, 82 S. Cal. L. Rev. 1 (2008)</p>
<p>Scott A. Keller, <a href="http://law.usc.edu/students/orgs/lawreview/S.KellerFederalEncroachment.cfm">How Courts Can Protect State Autonomy from Federal Administrative Encroachment</a>, 82 S. Cal. L. Rev. 45 (2008)</p>
<p><strong>Notes</strong></p>
<p>Brian Cook, <a href="http://law.usc.edu/students/orgs/lawreview/B.CookTakingPatentsinEminentDomain.cfm">Clearing a Path for Digital Development: Taking Patents in Eminent Domain Through the Adoption of Mandatory Standards</a>, 82 S. Cal. L. Rev. 97 (2008)</p>
<p>Noelle Formosa, <a href="http://law.usc.edu/students/orgs/lawreview/N.FormosaGangingUponRico.cfm">Ganging Up on RICO: Narrowing <em>Gonzales v. Raich</em> to Preserve the Significance of the Jurisdictional Element as a Constitutional Limitation in the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act</a>, 82 S. Cal. L. Rev. 135 (2008)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2009/01/southern_califo_5.html/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Southern California Law Review, 81:3 (March 2008)</title>
		<link>http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2008/05/southern_califo_4.html</link>
		<comments>http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2008/05/southern_califo_4.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 08 May 2008 20:44:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Southern California Law Review</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Law Rev (S Cal)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Law Rev Forum]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.solove.org/archives/2008/05/southern-california-law-review-813-march-2008.html</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p></p>
<p>Southern California Law Review, 81:3 (March 2008)</p>
<p>Articles</p>
<p>Margaret H. Lemos, The Other Delegate: Judicially Administered Statutes and the Nondelegation Doctrine, 81 S. Cal. L. Rev. 405 (2008)</p>
<p>David Luban, On the Commander in Chief Power, 81 S. Cal. L. Rev. 477 (2008)</p>
<p>Notes</p>
<p>Padraic Foran, Unreasonably Wrong: The Supreme Court&#8217;s Supremacy, the AEDPA Standard, and Carey v. Musladin, 81 S. Cal. L. Rev. 571 (2008)</p>
<p>Michael Moulton, Effecting the Impossible: An Argument Against Tax Strategy Patents, 81 S. Cal. L. Rev. 631 (2008)</p>
]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><img alt="Scal-logo2.jpg" src="http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/images/Scal-logo2.jpg" width="525" height="87" /></p>
<p><a href="http://law.usc.edu/students/orgs/lawreview/Volume81Number3.cfm">Southern California Law Review, 81:3 (March 2008)</a></p>
<p><strong>Articles</strong></p>
<p>Margaret H. Lemos, <a href="http://law.usc.edu/students/orgs/lawreview/M.LemosTheOtherDelegate.cfm">The Other Delegate: Judicially Administered Statutes and the Nondelegation Doctrine</a>, 81 S. Cal. L. Rev. 405 (2008)</p>
<p>David Luban, <a href="http://law.usc.edu/students/orgs/lawreview/D.LubanCommanderinChiefPower.cfm">On the Commander in Chief Power</a>, 81 S. Cal. L. Rev. 477 (2008)</p>
<p><strong>Notes</strong></p>
<p>Padraic Foran, <a href="http://law.usc.edu/students/orgs/lawreview/P.ForanUnreasonablyWrong.cfm">Unreasonably Wrong: The Supreme Court&#8217;s Supremacy, the AEDPA Standard, and <em>Carey v. Musladin</em></a>, 81 S. Cal. L. Rev. 571 (2008)</p>
<p>Michael Moulton, <a href="http://law.usc.edu/students/orgs/lawreview/M.MoultonEffectingtheImpossible.cfm">Effecting the Impossible: An Argument Against Tax Strategy Patents</a>, 81 S. Cal. L. Rev. 631 (2008)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2008/05/southern_califo_4.html/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Southern California Law Review, 81:2 (January 2008)</title>
		<link>http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2008/02/southern_califo.html</link>
		<comments>http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2008/02/southern_califo.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 09 Feb 2008 08:47:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Southern California Law Review</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Law Rev (S Cal)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Law Rev Contents]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.solove.org/archives/2008/02/southern-california-law-review-812-january-2008.html</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p></p>
<p>Southern California Law Review, 81:2 (January 2008)</p>
<p>Articles</p>
<p>Robin J. Effron, Event Jurisdiction and Protective Coordination: Lessons from the September 11th Litigation, 81 S. Cal. L. Rev. 199 (2008)</p>
<p>Mark A. Geistfeld, Punitive Damages, Retribution, and Due Process, 81 S. Cal. L. Rev. 263 (2008)</p>
<p>Notes</p>
<p>Josh Cavinato, Turbulence in the Airline Industry: Rethinking America&#8217;s Foreign Ownership Restrictions, 81 S. Cal. L. Rev. 311 (2008)</p>
<p>Joel M. Purles, Balancing the Scales: Expanding the Family Movie Act to Protect Consumers After Clean Flicks of Colorado, LLC v. Soderbergh, 81 S. Cal. L. Rev. 351 (2008)</p>
]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><img alt="Scal-logo2.jpg" src="http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/images/Scal-logo2.jpg" width="525" height="87" /></p>
<p><a href="http://law.usc.edu/students/orgs/lawreview/Volume81Number2.cfm">Southern California Law Review, 81:2 (January 2008)</a></p>
<p><strong>Articles</strong></p>
<p>Robin J. Effron, <a href="http://law.usc.edu/students/orgs/lawreview/R.EffronEventJurisdictionandProtectiveCoordination.cfm">Event Jurisdiction and Protective Coordination: Lessons from the September 11th Litigation</a>, 81 S. Cal. L. Rev. 199 (2008)</p>
<p>Mark A. Geistfeld, <a href="http://law.usc.edu/students/orgs/lawreview/M.GeistfeldPunitiveDamages.cfm">Punitive Damages, Retribution, and Due Process</a>, 81 S. Cal. L. Rev. 263 (2008)</p>
<p><strong>Notes</strong></p>
<p>Josh Cavinato, <a href="http://law.usc.edu/students/orgs/lawreview/J.CavinatoTurbulence.cfm">Turbulence in the Airline Industry: Rethinking America&#8217;s Foreign Ownership Restrictions</a>, 81 S. Cal. L. Rev. 311 (2008)</p>
<p>Joel M. Purles, <a href="http://law.usc.edu/students/orgs/lawreview/J.PurlesBalancingtheScales.cfm">Balancing the Scales: Expanding the Family Movie Act to Protect Consumers After <em>Clean Flicks of Colorado, LLC v. Soderbergh</em></a>, 81 S. Cal. L. Rev. 351 (2008)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2008/02/southern_califo.html/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Southern California Law Review, 81:1 (November 2007)</title>
		<link>http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2008/01/southern_califo_2.html</link>
		<comments>http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2008/01/southern_califo_2.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 07 Jan 2008 06:00:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Southern California Law Review</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Law Rev (S Cal)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Law Rev Contents]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.solove.org/archives/2008/01/southern-california-law-review-811-november-2007.html</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p></p>
<p>Southern California Law Review, 81:1 (November 2007)</p>
<p>Articles</p>
<p>Paul H. Robinson &#038; John M. Darley, Intuitions of Justice: Implications for Criminal Law and Justice Policy, 81 S. Cal. L. Rev. 1 (2007)</p>
<p>Barak D. Richman &#038; Christopher R. Murray, Rebuilding Illinois Brick: A Functionalist Approach to the Indirect Purchaser Rule, 81 S. Cal. L. Rev. 69 (2007)</p>
<p>Notes</p>
<p>Kenneth Kronstadt, Looking Behind the Curtain: Applying Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act to Businesses Behind Commercial Websites, 81 S. Cal. L. Rev. 111 (2007)</p>
<p>Gabriel Morgan, No More Playing Favorites: Reconsidering the Conclusive Congressional Presumption that Intercollegiate Athletics are Substantially Related to Educational Purposes, 81 S. Cal. L. Rev. 149 (2007)</p>
]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><img alt="Scal-logo2.jpg" src="http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/images/Scal-logo2.jpg" width="525" height="87" /></p>
<p><a href="http://law.usc.edu/students/orgs/lawreview/Volume81Number1.cfm">Southern California Law Review, 81:1 (November 2007)</a></p>
<p><strong>Articles</strong></p>
<p>Paul H. Robinson &#038; John M. Darley, <a href="http://law.usc.edu/students/orgs/lawreview/P.RobinsonIntuitionsofJustice.cfm">Intuitions of Justice: Implications for Criminal Law and Justice Policy</a>, 81 S. Cal. L. Rev. 1 (2007)</p>
<p>Barak D. Richman &#038; Christopher R. Murray, <a href="http://law.usc.edu/students/orgs/lawreview/B.RichmanRebuildingIllinoisBrick.cfm">Rebuilding <em>Illinois Brick</em>: A Functionalist Approach to the Indirect Purchaser Rule</a>, 81 S. Cal. L. Rev. 69 (2007)</p>
<p><strong>Notes</strong></p>
<p>Kenneth Kronstadt, <a href="http://law.usc.edu/students/orgs/lawreview/K.KronstadtLookingBehindtheCurtain.cfm">Looking Behind the Curtain: Applying Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act to Businesses Behind Commercial Websites</a>, 81 S. Cal. L. Rev. 111 (2007)</p>
<p>Gabriel Morgan, <a href="http://law.usc.edu/students/orgs/lawreview/G.MorganNoMorePlayingFavorites.cfm">No More Playing Favorites: Reconsidering the Conclusive Congressional Presumption that Intercollegiate Athletics are Substantially Related to Educational Purposes</a>, 81 S. Cal. L. Rev. 149 (2007)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2008/01/southern_califo_2.html/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Announcing Postscript, the Online Companion to the Southern California Law Review</title>
		<link>http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2007/11/announcing_post_1.html</link>
		<comments>http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2007/11/announcing_post_1.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 14 Nov 2007 08:48:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Southern California Law Review</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Law Rev (S Cal)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Law Rev Forum]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.solove.org/archives/2007/11/announcing-postscript-the-online-companion-to-the-southern-california-law-review.html</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p></p>
<p>The Southern California Law Review is pleased to announce the launch of its new online companion, Postscript. Other top law schools have added online companions, and the Law Review finds these new mediums to be a developing and important component of legal scholarship. Postscript permits us to publish a wider variety of material than we can accommodate in our printed journal. Postscript is intended to enhance legal scholarship by providing a forum where academics, practitioners, and students can respond to articles published in the Law Review and to recent legal developments in a concise and expedited format.</p>
<p>Postscript invites two categories of submissions. First, Postscript publishes responses to articles published in the Law Review. Second, Postscript publishes commentaries on legal developments and significant court decisions. We [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><img alt="Scal-postscript1.jpg" src="http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/images/Scal-postscript1.jpg" width="422" height="116" /></p>
<p>The <em>Southern California Law Review </em>is pleased to announce the launch of its new online companion, <em>Postscript</em>. Other top law schools have added online companions, and the <em>Law Review </em>finds these new mediums to be a developing and important component of legal scholarship. <em>Postscript </em>permits us to publish a wider variety of material than we can accommodate in our printed journal. <em>Postscript</em> is intended to enhance legal scholarship by providing a forum where academics, practitioners, and students can respond to articles published in the <em>Law Review </em>and to recent legal developments in a concise and expedited format.</p>
<p><em>Postscript </em>invites two categories of submissions. First, <em>Postscript </em>publishes responses to articles published in the <em>Law Review</em>. Second, <em>Postscript </em>publishes commentaries on legal developments and significant court decisions. We issue topic prompts for commentaries. In addition, authors are free to submit commentaries on other topics.</p>
<p><em>Postscript </em>utilizes a more expedited production process than the <em>Law Review</em>. Thus, we encourage responses and commentaries under 3,000 words and lightly footnoted. Academics, judges, practitioners, and students are free to submit pieces of original scholarship to <em>Postscript</em>.</p>
<p>For more information, please visit our <a href="http://law.usc.edu/students/orgs/lawreview/postscript/about.cfm">website</a>. For comments or suggestions, please e-mail <a href="mailto:postscript@law.usc.edu">postscript@law.usc.edu</a>. We invite and look forward to your participation in <em>Postscript.</em></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2007/11/announcing_post_1.html/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Southern California Law Review, 80:6 (September 2007)</title>
		<link>http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2007/11/southern_califo_1.html</link>
		<comments>http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2007/11/southern_califo_1.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 14 Nov 2007 07:38:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Southern California Law Review</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Law Rev (S Cal)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Law Rev Contents]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.solove.org/archives/2007/11/southern-california-law-review-806-september-2007.html</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p></p>
<p>Southern California Law Review, 80:6 (September 2007)</p>
<p>Articles</p>
<p>Paul Berman, Global Legal Pluralism, 80 S. Cal. L. Rev. 1155 (2007)</p>
<p>Stavros Gadinis &#038; Howell E. Jackson, Markets as Regulators: A Survey, 80 S. Cal. L. Rev. 1239 (2007)</p>
<p>Notes</p>
<p>Kyle Alexander Casazza, Inkblots: How the Ninth Amendment and the Privileges or Immunities Clause Protect Unenumerated Constitutional Rights, 80 S. Cal. L. Rev. 1383 (2007)</p>
<p>Richard C. Herrera, Policing State Testing Under No Child Left Behind: Encouraging Students with Disabilities to Blow the Whistle on Unscrupulous Educators, 80 S. Cal. L. Rev. 1433 (2007)</p>
]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><img alt="Scal-logo2.jpg" src="http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/images/Scal-logo2.jpg" width="525" height="87" /></p>
<p><a href="http://law.usc.edu/students/orgs/lawreview/">Southern California Law Review, 80:6 (September 2007)</a></p>
<p><strong>Articles</strong></p>
<p>Paul Berman, <a href="http://law.usc.edu/students/orgs/lawreview/P.BermanGlobalLegalPluralism.cfm">Global Legal Pluralism</a>, 80 S. Cal. L. Rev. 1155 (2007)</p>
<p>Stavros Gadinis &#038; Howell E. Jackson, <a href="http://law.usc.edu/students/orgs/lawreview/S.GadinisMarketsasRegulators.cfm">Markets as Regulators: A Survey</a>, 80 S. Cal. L. Rev. 1239 (2007)</p>
<p><strong>Notes</strong></p>
<p>Kyle Alexander Casazza, <a href="http://law.usc.edu/students/orgs/lawreview/K.CasazzaInkblots.cfm">Inkblots: How the Ninth Amendment and the Privileges or Immunities Clause Protect Unenumerated Constitutional Rights</a>, 80 S. Cal. L. Rev. 1383 (2007)</p>
<p>Richard C. Herrera, <a href="http://law.usc.edu/students/orgs/lawreview/R.HerreraPolicingStateTesting.cfm">Policing State Testing Under No Child Left Behind: Encouraging Students with Disabilities to Blow the Whistle on Unscrupulous Educators</a>, 80 S. Cal. L. Rev. 1433 (2007)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2007/11/southern_califo_1.html/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

