Georgetown University Law Center

About: Georgetown University Law Center is a based out in . It is known for research contribution in the topics: Supreme court & Global health. The organization has 585 authors who have published 2488 publications receiving 36650 citations. The organization is also known as: Georgetown Law & GULC.

The O’Neill Institute for National and Global Health Law: Discovering Innovative Solutions for the Most Pressing Health Problems Facing the Nation and the World

Abstract: The connection between health and an individual’s ability to function in society, as well as the importance of health to a society’s economic, political, and social wellbeing necessitates finding innovative solutions to the world’s most pressing health problems. The O’Neill Institute for National and Global Health Law at Georgetown University seeks to demonstrate the role that academia can play in addressing complex national and global health problems in a comprehensive, evidence-based, intellectually-rigorous, and nonpartisan manner. The O’Neill Institute currently has three research programs: global health law, national health law, and the center for disease prevention and outcomes. Projects within these programs examine a broad range of health law and policy issues, such as global health governance, global tobacco control, health worker migration, emergency preparedness, national and Chinese health reform, HIV and AIDS issues, food safety, and personalized medicine. These projects merge the scholarly capacity within the institute with the resources of its partners, which include the World Health Organization, World Bank, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids. Additionally, the faculty and fellows of the O’Neill Institute regularly produce high-level scholarship and engage in teaching offering multi-disciplinary course offerings and innovative graduate degree programs.

A Framework Convention on Global Health: Health for All, Justice for All

Abstract: Health inequalities represent perhaps the most consequential global health challenge and yet they persist despite increased funding and innovative programs. The United Nations is revising the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) that will shape the world for many years to come. What would a transformative post-MDG framework for global health justice look like? A global coalition of civil society and academics — the Joint Action and Learning Initiative on National and Global Responsibilities for Health (JALI) — has formed an international campaign to advocate for a Framework Convention on Global Health (FCGH). Recently endorsed by the UN Secretary-General, the FCGH would reimagine global governance for health, offering a new post-MDG vision. This Special Communication describes the key modalities of an FCGH to illustrate how it would improve health and reduce inequalities. The modalities would include defining national responsibilities for the population’s health; defining international responsibilities for reliable, sustainable funding; setting global health priorities; coordinating fragmented activities; reshaping global governance for health; and providing strong global health leadership through the World Health Organization.

The Disdain Campaign

Abstract: A response to Pamela S. Karlan, ​The Supreme Court​ 2011 Term Forward: Democracy and Disdain, 126 Harv. L. Rev. 1 (2012).In her Foreword, Professor Pamela Karlan offers a quite remarkable critique of the conservative Justices on the Supreme Court. She faults them not so much for the doctrines they purport to follow, or outcomes they reach, but for the attitude they allegedly manifest toward Congress and the people. “My focus here is not so much on the content of the doctrine but on the character of the analysis.” She describes Chief Justice Roberts’s opinion of the Court as “a thinly veiled critique of Congress: the fools couldn’t even figure out how to structure section § 5000A to render it constitutional.” And of the Chief Justice’s attitude, she says that “[h]e conveyed disdain even as he upheld the Act.” In her conclusion, she asks, “if the Justices disdain us, how ought we to respond?” This question echoes how she begins her provocative piece: “The Court’s dismissive treatment of politics raises the question whether, and for how long, the people will maintain their confidence in a Court that has lost its confidence in them.”Although Professor Karlan also offers insightful observations comparing the Roberts Court with the Warren Court, her principal theme is reflected in these passages and the very title of her piece: “Democracy and Disdain.” According to Karlan, in addition to whatever may be wrong with their principles and doctrines, the conservative Justices simply have a bad attitude. To paraphrase the Captain in Cool Hand Luke, they don’t have their “minds right.” It is this quite distinctive thesis the author wishes to examine here. For, as it happens, the left knows a thing or two about disdain.

Politics in Securities Enforcement

Abstract: American securities enforcement agencies often face charges that they use their enforcement power to further political goals. Most recently, Standard & Poor’s credit rating agency claimed that the U.S. Department of Justice unfairly singled it out for prosecution for fraudulent credit ratings after it downgraded U.S. sovereign debt. The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), too, has been accused of using its enforcement politically: of bringing enforcement to punish its detractors, and of holding back investigations of politically-connected figures.While individual charges might be justified, there is surprisingly little evidence that enforcement agencies, in particular the SEC, select their targets politically. Yet, while politics is largely irrelevant at the individual case selection level, political influences do shape enforcement choices at the aggregate level. The main drivers are not political directives or direct pressure from important people in high places. Rather, politics seeps into enforcement choices through close congressional oversight by the U.S. House and Senate committees for banking and financial services and for appropriations. The ultimate result of congressional oversight during the last decade is an increase in enforcement targeting strict-liability violations and follow-on cases, obscured almost entirely by meaningless reporting of enforcement results — a result that both Congress and SEC leadership seem to be comfortable with, although there is no evidence that it reduces fraud, and can produce embarrassing enforcement failures.