Archive for the ‘Law Rev (Texas)’ Category
Texas Law Review, Volume 86, Number 6 (May 2008)
posted by Texas Law Review
Texas Law Review, Volume 86, Number 6 (May 2008)
ARTICLES
Daniel A. Crane
Standards, Testing, and School Finance Litigation
James E. Ryan
BOOK REVIEW
Of Cabbages and Kings: A Review of Our Undemocratic Constitution by Sanford Levinson
Charles D. Kelso & R. Randall Kelso
NOTES
Matthew W. Swinehart
Claire B. Chandler
May 7, 2008 at 1:18 pm
Posted in: Law Rev (Texas)
Print This Post
No Comments
Texas Law Review, Volume 86, Number 5 (April 2008)
posted by Texas Law Review
Texas Law Review, Volume 86, Number 5 (April 2008)
ARTICLES
The Role of Precedent in Constitutional Adjudication: An Introspection
David L. Shapiro
The Virtue of Judicial Statesmanship
Neil S. Siegel
BOOK REVIEW
Understanding the New Politics of Judicial Appointments
David R. Stras
NOTES
Forum Non Conveniens: Whose Convenience and Justice?
Finity E. Jernigan
Go Shops: A Ticket to Ride Past a Target Board’s Revlon Duties?
Joseph L. Morrel
April 20, 2008 at 1:46 pm
Posted in: Law Rev (Texas), Law Rev Contents
Print This Post
No Comments
See Also Forum Discussion: Voting Rights Act Section 5
posted by Texas Law Review
See Also Forum Discussion: Voting Rights Act Section 5
ARTICLE
The Strange Ironic Career of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, 1965-2007 by Prof. J. Morgan Kousser
In his Article, Professor Kousser takes the recent renewal of various provisions of the Voting Rights Act as an invitation to reflect on the history of Section Five of this politically transformative legislation. Although the Voting Rights Act currently enjoys overwhelming popular and legislative support, the rushed renewal of expiring provisions of the Act in 2005 and 2006 became a political minefield where partisan interests sowed the dragon’s teeth of the Act’s demise even as they extended provisions of the Act by twenty-five years. The much-heralded renewal merely restored Section Five of the Act to its “damaged pre-2000” state, and tactics were employed to all but invite the Supreme Court to declare the Act unconstitutional under the Court’s reinvigorated federalism concerns. By delving into the history of Section Five of this Act, Professor Kousser reveals that the present confusions reflected in the “renewal saga” were not anomalous outcomes of unique circumstances but instead accurately reflect a history that is filled with irony and unintended consequences. This historical study illuminates the fragility of the Voting Rights Act and the ease with which political apathy and antagonistic judicial pronouncements can frustrate progress towards racial equality in voting and democratic representation.
RESPONSE
The History of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act from Another Perspective by Prof. Robert S. Bickerstaff
Professor Robert S. Bickerstaff offers a response to The Strange, Ironic Career of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act that includes both a contrary analysis of Supreme Court decisions regarding Section 5 and also a detailed discussion of the precise effects of Section 5 on minority representation by elected officials. Professor Bickerstaff offers insights based on his thirty-two years of experience representing jurisdictions covered by the election-change review process of Section 5. Although much has been accomplished, real-world application of Section 5, particularly against the backdrop of partisan politics, has presented new challenges for achieving the goal of meaningful minority participation.
April 8, 2008 at 2:11 pm
Posted in: Law Rev (Texas)
Print This Post
No Comments
Texas Law Review, Volume 86, Number 4 (March 2008)
posted by Texas Law Review
Texas Law Review, Volume 86, Number 4 (March 2008)
ARTICLES
The Strange, Ironic Career of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, 1965–2007
J. Morgan Kousser
Rethinking Treaty Interpretation
Scott M. Sullivan
BOOK REVIEW
Law and Governance in the 21st Century Regulatory State
Jason M. Solomon
NOTES
Anthony N. Kaim
Eliminating Public Disclosures of Government Information from the Reach of the Espionage Act
Judson O. Littleton
March 19, 2008 at 1:19 pm
Posted in: Law Rev (Texas)
Print This Post
No Comments
See Also Forum Discussion: Medical Autonomy and the Constitution
posted by Texas Law Review
See Also Forum Discussion: Medical Autonomy and the Constitution
ARTICLE
The Constitutional Right to Make Medical Treatment Decisions: A Tale of Two Doctrines by B. Jessie Hill
In her article, Professor Hill discusses the fractured state of the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence on whether individuals have a right to make autonomous medical treatment choices. She ultimately concludes “that a constitutional right to protect one’s health should be consistently recognized; that the recognition of this right should not be artificially limited by excessive deference to legislative findings of medical fact; and that this right will have to be carefully balanced against the state’s real and legitimate interest in regulating the practice of medicine to protect the public.”
RESPONSES
Necessity, Not Autonomy by Mark S. Stein
In his response to the article, Mark Stein argues for a somewhat different framing of the substantive-due-process right advocated by Professor Hill.
A View from the Trenches by J. Scott Ballenger
In his response, Scott Ballenger discusses issues of medical autonomy in light of his experience as counsel for the Abigail Alliance.
January 22, 2008 at 3:24 pm
Posted in: Law Rev (Texas), Law Rev Forum
Print This Post
No Comments
Texas Law Review, Volume 86, Number 2 (December 2007)
posted by Texas Law Review
Texas Law Review, Volume 86, Number 2 (December 2007)
ARTICLES
Democracy and Decriminalization
Darryl K. Brown
The Constitutional Right to Make Medical Treatment Decisions: A Tale of Two Doctrines
B. Jessie Hill
BOOK REVIEW
On Misshapen Stones and Criminal Law’s Epistemology
Michael S. Pardo
NOTES
A Legislative Solution: Solving the Contemporary Challenge of Forced Waiver of Privilege
Robert Zachary Beasley
Rights and Regulations: Academic Freedom and a University’s Right to Regulate the Student Press
Lauren E. Tanner
January 16, 2008 at 6:59 pm
Posted in: Law Rev (Texas)
Print This Post
No Comments
Announcing the Law Review Table of Contents Project
posted by Daniel Solove
I’m pleased to announce a new feature at Concurring Opinions – the Law Review Table of Contents Project. We have invited a number of the top law reviews to post the table of contents to their new issues and to provide links to the articles if they are posted on the law review’s website.
The goal of the Table of Contents Project is to provide you with a useful research tool. Finding out about the latest law review publications can be difficult. If you’re like me, you rarely read the physical issues of law reviews anymore; and you don’t have time to constantly keep checking each law review’s website to see if a new issue has been published. Now you don’t have to. Just keep reading Concurring Opinions, and information about the latest law review scholarship will be brought to you – all in one place!
Each journal’s tables of contents will be archived in two categories: (1) a category called Law Rev Contents – collecting all the law review table of contents postings; and (2) a category for each specific law review.
Participating law reviews thus far include:
* Boston College
* Chicago
* Columbia
* Cornell
* Duke
* Emory
* Fordham
* Georgetown
* GW
* Harvard
* Indiana
* Michigan
* Minnesota
* NYU
* Northwestern
* Notre Dame
* Southern California
* Stanford
* Texas
* UCLA
* Vanderbilt
* Virginia
* Washington University
* Yale
We still have a bunch of open invitations, so we anticipate that the number of participants will grow. Unfortunately, we cannot include all law reviews, as this will overwhelm the regular content of our blog.
We hope that you find this new feature to be helpful. We’re very excited about it here, as we believe that this will be of great use to keep you informed about new legal scholarship.
November 13, 2007 at 12:10 am
Posted in: Administrative Announcements, Law Rev (Boston College), Law Rev (Chicago), Law Rev (Columbia), Law Rev (Cornell), Law Rev (Duke), Law Rev (Emory), Law Rev (Fordham), Law Rev (GW), Law Rev (Georgetown), Law Rev (Harvard), Law Rev (Indiana), Law Rev (Michigan), Law Rev (Minnesota), Law Rev (NYU), Law Rev (Northwestern), Law Rev (Notre Dame), Law Rev (S Cal), Law Rev (Stanford), Law Rev (Texas), Law Rev (UCLA), Law Rev (Vanderbilt), Law Rev (Virginia), Law Rev (Yale), Law Rev Contents
Print This Post
7 Comments
