Texas Law Review, Volume 86, Number 6 (May 2008)

ARTICLES

Technocracy and Antitrust

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

Remedying Daubert’s Inadequacy in Evaluating the Admissibility of Scientific Models Used in Environmental-Tort Litigation

Matthew W. Swinehart

Standing Up for Justice: A Case for Amending a Rule that Unreasonably Restricts Who May Sue for Injury to Real Property

Claire B. Chandler

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

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 [...]]]>

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.

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

Classifying the Right to Rental Payment Streams Stripped Off a Lease: An Examination of the Issues Not Discussed in Commercial Money Center

Anthony N. Kaim

Eliminating Public Disclosures of Government Information from the Reach of the Espionage Act

Judson O. Littleton

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, [...]]]>

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.

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

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 [...]]]>

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.