Institution
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.
Topics: Supreme court, Global health, Public health, Health policy, Human rights
Papers published on a yearly basis
Papers
More filters
•
TL;DR: In this article, a combination of procedural reforms and market mechanisms is proposed to improve matters for both sides and to make it less likely that a party with a meritorious litigation position will fall victim to an adversary's sharp tactics.
Abstract: It is uncontroversial that litigation is too expensive. Controversy abounds, however, over who is to blame and what is to be done about the problem. Plaintiffs and defendants each accuse the other of pursuing weak or meritless litigation positions that inflict needless expense. This article suggests that regardless of who is correct — and who is more often at fault — the same set of solutions may be available to assuage the problem. The article embraces a combination of procedural reforms and market mechanisms designed to improve matters for both sides and to make it less likely that a party with a meritorious litigation position will fall victim to an adversary’s sharp tactics. Specifically, I embrace an English-style approach, one which combines a loser-pays, fee-shifting regime with a market-based, risk-allocation mechanism designed to counterbalance the evils of fee shifting and to protect risk-averse litigants against losing a meritorious case and being forced to bear their opponents' legal fees as well as their own.
1 citations
••
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors argue that private universities have a duty to act with integrity, which means that they must fully honor the public representations it makes to its students and faculty.
Abstract: Private universities are not bound by the First Amendment, which restrains
only state action. This leaves them free to adopt whatever restrictions on
freedom of expression they deem consistent with their mission. However,
private universities a have duty to act with integrity, which means that
they must fully honor the public representations it makes to its students
and faculty. This implies that private universities must refrain from making
conflicting representations that cannot be simultaneously fulfilled. Most
universities represent themselves as committed to both free of expression on
campus and to providing an inclusive and welcoming educational environment
for people of all backgrounds. However, the expression of certain ideas can
offend some members of the university community and make them feel
unwelcome. This creates a situation in which it is difficult, if not
impossible, for the university to live up to both of its representations. I
argue that this implies that private universities are ethically obligated to
specify which of these two conflicting obligations it considers more
important—which one will trump the other in case of conflict.
I further argue that private universities that resolve this situation by
giving priority to freedom of expression implicitly assume two further
obligations: (1) to adopt a policy stating that no member of the academic
community will be subject to investigation for an academic infraction solely
on the basis of the ideas that they express, and (2) to revise their
harassment policies to reflect this commitment. This is because a commitment
to freedom of expression entails a commitment to eschew policies that have a
“chilling effect” on expression. In the current academic
environment, free speech is suppressed not by the conviction and punishment
for academic infractions, but by the threat of being investigated for such
infractions, especially for violating the university’s harassment
policy. Thus, a commitment to freedom of expression requires revising
university harassment policies to bar investigations based on the content of
purely verbal or written expression.
1 citations
•
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors describe their approach to teaching the rudiments of legislation in a first-year legal writing course, and present a case study of a first year course.
Abstract: This brief article describes my approach to teaching the rudiments of legislation in a first-year legal writing course.
1 citations
••
TL;DR: Texas ruling and other legal challenges raise questions about the ACA's future even as enrollment holds steady.
Abstract: Texas ruling and other legal challenges raise questions about the ACA’s future even as enrollment holds steady.
1 citations
••
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors argue that the Israeli Supreme Court has largely institutionalized a form of bio-politics in its decision-making process and that the Court's significance lies primarily in its willingness to use law as a mean to stall, defer, postpone, suspend, and generally legitimate conditions on the ground.
Abstract: If we concur with Foucault‘s view of racism as an elementary, structural characteristic of the modern nation-state (through the use of biopolitical technologies ranging from social exclusion to mass murder), there is little doubt that Israel can be theorized as a racial state. Israel‘s biopolitics largely operates in what Eyal Weizman has termed ― the politics of verticality — namely, Israel‘s simultaneous attempt to control three spatial levels — the land, the air, and even the subterranean level — in order systematically manage (and subjugate) its Palestinian neighbors. Because there was never an intention to constitute the Palestinian inhabitants as part of the Israeli citizenry or view them as a distinct people per se, Israeli biopolitics formed Palestinians as subjects susceptible to unchecked domination. The subsequently enacted controlling apparatuses utilized by Israel to reproduce power relations have taken on numerous features, coercive and noncoercive, legalistic and nonlegalistic, in an attempt to both normalize the occupation and perpetuate its existence. The population in Israel discursively forms a separate Jewish nationalist identity, while Palestinians and the Arab minority within Israel proper are inferiorly constituted. By mere virtue of their presence in the Occupied Territories (OT), Palestinians are thus collectively punished. For the sake of maintaining a Jewish state, Israel has also applied varying pressures on the Palestinian citizens of Israel in order to slow their rate of reproduction while not applying those same pressures to Jewish-Israelis.
In the following essay, I will argue that the Israeli Supreme Court (ISC) has largely institutionalized a form of bio-politics in its decision-making process. An examination of caselaw generated by the ISC vis-a-vis the OT since the outbreak of the second intifada in late 2000 not only reveals a largely deferential mode of judicial review, but also a continued perpetuation of population control as resembled within Foucault‘s formulation of biopolitics. The Court‘s significance lies primarily in its willingness to use law as a mean to stall, defer, postpone, suspend, and generally legitimate conditions on the ground. This ― new hegemony has also generated extensive ― interest in the age-old demographic question among Israeli academics, policy planners, and government officials who have argued for a ― policy of containment‖ to preserve ― the Jewish character of Israel. Appreciating the Jewish nationalist identity foundational to Israel‘s existence is crucial in the broader examination of Israel‘s conduct toward the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip and the ISC‘s foundational role in legitimating these practices.
1 citations
Authors
Showing all 585 results
Name | H-index | Papers | Citations |
---|---|---|---|
Lawrence O. Gostin | 75 | 879 | 23066 |
Michael J. Saks | 38 | 155 | 5398 |
Chirag Shah | 34 | 341 | 5056 |
Sara J. Rosenbaum | 34 | 425 | 6907 |
Mark Dybul | 33 | 61 | 4171 |
Steven C. Salop | 33 | 120 | 11330 |
Joost Pauwelyn | 32 | 154 | 3429 |
Mark Tushnet | 31 | 267 | 4754 |
Gorik Ooms | 29 | 124 | 3013 |
Alicia Ely Yamin | 29 | 122 | 2703 |
Julie E. Cohen | 28 | 63 | 2666 |
James G. Hodge | 27 | 225 | 2874 |
John H. Jackson | 27 | 102 | 2919 |
Margaret M. Blair | 26 | 75 | 4711 |
William W. Bratton | 25 | 112 | 2037 |