Northwestern University Law Review, Issue 102:1 (Winter 2008)

Northwestern University Law Review, Issue 102:1 (Winter 2008)

(See here for links to articles in recent issues and the contents of forthcoming issues.)

Articles

Nestor M. Davidson, The Problem of Equality in Takings, 102 Nw. U. L. Rev. 1 (2008)

Scott Dodson, In Search of Removal Jurisdiction, 102 Nw. U. L. Rev. 55 (2008)

Timothy P. Glynn, Delaware's VantagePoint: The Empire Strikes Back in the Post-Post-Enron Era, 102 Nw. U. L. Rev. 91 (2008)

Andy G. Olree, James Madison and Legislative Chaplains, 102 Nw. U. L. Rev. 145 (2008)

Essays

Yuval Feldman & Doron Teichman, Are All "Legal Dollars" Created Equal?, 102 Nw. U. L. Rev. 223 (2008)

Tonja Jacobi & Gwendolyn Carroll, Acknowledging Guilt: Forcing Self-Identification in Post-Conviction DNA Testing, 102 Nw. U. L. Rev. 263 (2008)

Comments

Sarah E. Agudo, Irregular Passion: The Unconstitutionality and Inefficacy of Sex Offender Residency Laws, 102 Nw. U. L. Rev. 307 (2008)

Dan Fenske, All Enemies, Foreign and Domestic: Erasing the Distinction Between Foreign and Domestic Intelligence Gathering Under the Fourth Amendment, 102 Nw. U. L. Rev. 343 (2008)

Sena Ku, The Supreme Court's GVR Power: Drawing a Line Between Deference and Control, 102 Nw. U. L. Rev. 383 (2008)

Colloquy Essay

David McGowan, What Tool Works Tells Us About Tailoring Patent Misuse Remedies, 102 Nw. U. L. Rev. 421 (2008)

Special Section: 2006 Federalist Society National Lawyers Convention

Panel I: Limited Government and Spreading Democracy: Uneasy Cousins?

A. Raymond Randolph, Spreading Democracy, 102 Nw. U. L. Rev. 431 (2008)

Kenneth Wollack, Democracy Promotion: Serving U.S. Values and Interests, 102 Nw. U. L. Rev. 433 (2008)

François-Henri Briard, France and the United States: Not So Far from Each Other, 102 Nw. U. L. Rev. 437 (2008)

Tom G. Palmer, Democracy and the Contest for Liberty, 102 Nw. U. L. Rev. 443 (2008)

William Kristol, Limited Government and Spreading Democracy: Two Fronts, 102 Nw. U. L. Rev. 449 (2008)

Panel III: Are Constitutional Changes Necessary to Limit Government?

David B. Sentelle, Introductory Remarks, 102 Nw. U. L. Rev. 455 (2008)

William N. Eskridge, Jr., No Easy Constitutional Solution for Big Government, 102 Nw. U. L. Rev. 457 (2008)

Daniel H. Lowenstein, Term Limits, Initiatives, and Other Gimmickry, 102 Nw. U. L. Rev. 461 (2008)

Richard D. Parker, Two Concepts of Government, 102 Nw. U. L. Rev. 465 (2008)

Frank H. Easterbrook, On Constitutional Changes to Limit Government, 102 Nw. U. L. Rev. 469 (2008)

Panel IV: The Role of Government in Defining Our Culture

Edwin Meese III, Introductory Remarks, 102 Nw. U. L. Rev. 477 (2008)

Walter E. Dellinger III, Cultural Values and Government, 102 Nw. U. L. Rev. 479 (2008)

Charles Murray, The (Im)proper Role of Government in Defining Our Culture, 102 Nw. U. L. Rev. 483 (2008)

Anthony D. Romero, "Limited Government" and the Betrayal of American Values, 102 Nw. U. L. Rev. 487 (2008)

Phyllis Schlafly, How the Government Influences Our Culture, 102 Nw. U. L. Rev. 491 (2008)

William N. Eskridge, Jr., How Government Unintentionally Influences Culture (The Case of Same-Sex Marriage), 102 Nw. U. L. Rev. 495 (2008)

Hadley P. Arkes, The Role of Government in Shaping Culture, 102 Nw. U. L. Rev. 499 (2008)

Posted by Northwestern University Law Review at 10:24 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

On the Colloquy: Jurisdiction and Climate Change

This week, the Northwestern University Law Review Colloquy published a response by Professor Scott Dodson regarding the Supreme Court's decision in Bowles v. Russell. He responded to critiques by Professor Elizabeth Chamblee Burch, Mr. E. King Poor, and Professor Perry Dane and defended his position that the Court disrupted prior precedent in Bowles. To see all of the pieces in the series, click here.

Last week, Professor Howard M. Wasserman responded to Professor Dodson's Article In Search of Removal Jurisdiction, 102 Nw. U. L. Rev. 55 (2008). His Essay examines the connections between jurisdiction, merits, and procedure, when the connections come into play, and how to separate them out.

On February 11, Professor Robert L. Glicksman participated in the ongoing debate on climate change legislation. He discussed which federal agencies should be responsible for implementing climate change regulation, the proper measure of discretion that Congress should afford these various agencies, and whether the regulation should trump state and local initiatives. To see all pieces in the series, click here.

For more, go to the Colloquy archives page, and remember to check back each week for new content.

Posted by Northwestern University Law Review at 09:57 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

On the Colloquy: The Best of 2007, The Newest of 2008

The Northwestern University Law Review Colloquy celebrated its first full year of publishing online content in 2007, and we look forward to publishing new pieces throughout 2008. Please be sure to check back weekly for new pieces.

Today, we published the most recent piece in our ongoing series concerning climate change legislation. You can view Professor Rose's piece here; and you can see all pieces related to climate change here. Keep an eye out in the coming weeks for more contributions to this topic.

We've also published more pieces in the past few weeks concerning temporal jurisdiction and the Supreme Court's decision in Bowles v. Russell. To see all of the pieces in that series, click here.

Continue reading for some of the highlights of the past year.

Ideological Drift of Supreme Court Justices

Professors Epstein et al. contributed an essay collecting empirical evidence of ideological drift among Supreme Court justices, in advance of their full-length publication in the Law Review. The essay drew a variety of responses, including a response from Linda Greenhouse of the New York Times. Click here for a list of all the posts in that series.

Originalism

In January 2007, Professors McGinnis and Rappaport wrote an essay entitled A Pragmatic Defense of Originalism. This sparked a spirited exchange, with contributions from Professors Leib, Law, and McGowan. Click here for all of the posts in that series.

Post-Kelo Reforms

Professors Dana and Somin debated the effect of post-Kelo reforms on the poor, especially considering the effect that such legislation would have on "blight" condemnation. Click here for a list of the posts in that exchange.

For a listing of all the debates we've hosted on the Colloquy, click here.

We have also hosted a number of excellent independent pieces in the last year, including Professor Reynold's piece on the constitutionality of Dick Cheney and Professor Bennett's timely piece on electoral vote reform in California. For more, check out our archives, and as always, check back each week for new content.

Posted by Northwestern University Law Review at 09:00 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Northwestern University Law Review, Issue 101:4 (Fall 2007)

Northwestern University Law Review, Issue 101:4 (Fall 2007)

(See here for links to articles in recent issues and the contents of forthcoming issues.)

Articles

Lee Epstein, Andrew D. Martin, Kevin M. Quinn & Jeffrey A. Segal, Ideological Drift among Supreme Court Justices: Who, When, and How Important?, 101 Nw. U. L. Rev. 1483 (2007)

M. Todd Henderson, Paying CEOs in Bankruptcy: Executive Compensation When Agency Costs are Low, 101 Nw. U. L. Rev. 1543 (2007)

Craig Allen Nard & John F. Duffy, Rethinking Patent Law's Uniformity Principle, 101 Nw. U. L. Rev. 1619 (2007)

Jonathan Remy Nash & Richard L. Revesz, Grandfathering and Environmental Regulation: The Law and Economics of New Source Review, 101 Nw. U. L. Rev. 1677 (2007)

S. Jay Plager & Lynne E. Pettigrew, Rethinking Patent Law's Uniformity Principle: A Response to Nard & Duffy, 101 Nw. U. L. Rev. 1735 (2007)

Essay

Katherine Y. Barnes, Is Affirmative Action Responsible for the Achievement Gap Between Black and White Law Students?, 101 Nw. U. L. Rev. 1759 (2007)

Review Essay

Russell K. Robinson, Uncovering Covering, 101 Nw. U. L. Rev. 1809 (2007)

Note

Daniel Su, Substantial Similarity and Architectural Works: Filtering Out "Total Concept and Feel", 101 Nw. U. L. Rev. 1851 (2007)

Colloquy Essays

Linda Greenhouse, Justices Who Change: A Response to Epstein et al., 101 Nw. U. L. Rev. 1885 (2007)

Ward Farnsworth, The Use and Limits of Martin-Quinn Scores to Assess Supreme Court Justices, with Special Attention to the Problem of Ideological Drift, 101 Nw. U. L. Rev. 1891 (2007)

Ethan J. Leib, Why Supermajoritarianism Does Not Illuminate the Interpretive Debate Between Originalists and Non-Originalists, 101 Nw. U. L. Rev. 1905 (2007)

John O. McGinnis & Michael B. Rappaport, Originalism and Supermajoritarianism: Defending the Nexus, 101 Nw. U. L. Rev. 1919 (2007)

Ilya Somin, Is Post-Kelo Eminent Domain Reform Bad for the Poor?, 101 Nw. U. L. Rev. 1931 (2007)

Posted by Northwestern University Law Review at 08:21 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Announcing the Law Review Table of Contents Project

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.

Posted by Daniel J. Solove at 12:10 AM | Comments (7) | TrackBack

Announcing the Law Review Forum Project

I am very pleased to announce a new project here at Concurring Opinions – the Law Review Forum Project. We will be hosting online forums for several law reviews. Increasingly, law reviews are creating online forums as companions to their regular law review issues. These forums contain very short response pieces, essays, debates, and other works that attempt to bridge the gap between regular legal scholarship and the blogosphere.

Journals seeking to create their own online forum face two daunting challenges. First, they must create and actively maintain a web presence. Second, they must find ways to attract readers, which is difficult in an age where so many blogs and other websites exist. A wide readership for a website depends upon having daily content. Law review forums produce content sporadically throughout the year at intervals that are not regular enough to attract a significant readership.

Therefore, we have invited a number of law reviews to participate in a partnership with our blog. Throughout the year, each law review will periodically post forum essays here at Concurring Opinions. We are not requiring an exclusive license, so participating law reviews can also cross-post at their own websites.

We see this as a mutually-beneficial arrangement. We can bring great content to our blog, and law reviews can reach our significant audience without the pressures of having to build and maintain an online readership or of having to produce content with regularity.

Law reviews currently with and without existing forums will be participating. Thus far, the following law reviews have agreed to participate:

* Harvard Law Review
* Virginia Law Review
* Michigan Law Review
* University of Pennsylvania Law Review
* Northwestern Law Review
* UCLA Law Review
* George Washington Law Review

In the near future, we hope to be expanding the list of participating law reviews.

Posted by Daniel J. Solove at 01:04 AM | Comments (4) | TrackBack