Professor Mitchell’s characteristically thoughtful and incisive comment makes many important points. I also agree with Professor Mitchell that a modernization approach gives political actors an incentive to behave strategically… Read More »
This Editorial is a response to an editorial—and accompanying article—by two of my colleagues at Cornell, Valerie Hans and Ted Eisenberg. Their editorial persuasively argues that the admissibility of a defendant’s prior criminal record has several consistent effects: (1) it deters defendants with a record from taking the stand in… Read More »
This Editorial is a response to Dan Markel’s Legal Workshop Editorial: Retributive Damages as Intermediate Public Sanctions: A Synopsis.
In Retributive Damages: A Theory of Punitive Damages as Intermediate Sanction, Professor Markel intentionally situates his… Read More »
In their recent article, Passive Discrimination, Jonah Gelbach, Jonathan Klick, and Lesley Wexler (hereafter “GKW”) offer yet another way to pile additional liabilities on hapless employers for race or sex discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Their article is ingenious because it identifies a mechanism—previously discussed… Read More »
This is a response to James McDonald’s student Note, Milberg’s Monopoly: Restoring Honesty and Competition to the Plaintiffs’ Bar in Volume 58 of the Duke Law Journal. Click here for the Note.
Although the Duke Law Journal’s article, Milberg’s Monopoly: Restoring Honesty and Competition to the Plaintiffs’ Bar, reflects a lot of effort… Read More »
The Supreme Court is frequently accused of declaring laws unconstitutional based on little more than the justices’ ideological preferences. This is an especially common criticism of the Court’s capital-punishment, equal-protection, and substantive-due-process jurisprudence, where the justices have made little effort to tie their decisions to anything resembling a neutral principle.
In… Read More »
Abraham Bell’s instructive article begins with his conscious decision to distance himself from the “popular firestorm” that greeted the Supreme Court’s 2005 decision in Kelo v New London. In so doing, however, he reveals a tin ear to the public protests, which contain much good sense. As one author who has… Read More »