DOCSLIB.ORG

Jobname: Nlj Page: 1 Sess: 18

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Jobname: Nlj Page: 1 Sess: 18 JOBNAME: NLJ PAGE: 1 SESS: 18 OUTPUT: Thu Sep 10 07:22:48 2015 /hling/journals/notts/132/title_page JOBNAME: NLJ PAGE: 1 SESS: 28 OUTPUT: Thu Sep 10 07:22:48 2015 /hling/journals/notts/132/edboard NOTTINGHAM LAW JOURNAL VOL. 24 2015 General Editor Dr Helen O’Nions, LLB (Middlesex), LLM (Leicester), PGDip HE Associate Editor Ms Janice Denoncourt, BA (McGill), LLB (W.Aust.), LLM, Solicitor Advisory Board The Rt Hon the Lord Saville of Newdigate The Rt Hon Sir Philip Otton Judge Bostjan Zupancic, the European Court of Human Rights Prof Conor Gearty, London School of Economics Prof Mark Findlay, University of Sydney Prof Michael J. Gunn, University of Staffordshire Mr Jonathan Griffiths, Queen Mary, University of London Prof Geraint Howells, Lancaster University Prof Martin Hunter, Essex Court Chambers & Nottingham Prof Robert G. Lee, Exeter Law School Law School Mr Christopher Muttukumaru, Director of Legal Mr Roger Leng, University of Warwick Services, Department of Transport Prof Gary Watt, University of Warwick Prof John Peysner, University of Lincoln Prof Barry Rider, University of Cambridge Prof Mary Seneviratne, Nottingham Law School Mr Paul Smith, Partner, Eversheds Mr Marc S. Stauch, Leibnitz University, Hannover Mr John Snape, Warwick University Prof Adrian Walters, Nottingham Law School Dr Kim Stevenson, University of Plymouth Prof George A. Sarpong, former Director Ghana Dr Christian Twigg-Flesner, University of Hull School of Law Prof Stephen Weatherill, University of Oxford Mr Chuka Agbu, Lexavier Partners, Nigeria Editorial Board Development: Mrs Louise Taylor, LLB (Hons), Scots Law, University of Dundee (2002) Diploma in Legal Practice, University of Dundee (2003), PGCHE, Nottingham Trent University (2008). Marketing: Alfonso Valero, LLB (Complutense of Madrid), LLM (QMUL), PGC Sports Law (King’s College), PGC HE (Nottingham Trent University) Administrative Assistant Ms Carole Vaughan The Nottingham Law Journal is a refereed journal, normally published in Spring each year. Contributions of articles, case notes and book reviews to the Journal are welcomed. Intending contributors are invited to contact the Editor for a copy of the style sheet, which gives details of the format which submissions must follow. Submissions and enquiries should be addressed to: Dr Helen O’Nions, Nottingham Trent University, Burton Street, Nottingham, NG1 4BU. Telephone 0115 941 8418. Ms O’Nions can also be contacted on the following e-mail addresses: helen.o’[email protected]. Style notes and further details about the Journal are available on request. Intending subscribers should please contact Ms Carole Vaughan at the above address. Intending subscribers in North America are advised to contact Wm W Gaunt & Sons. Inc, Gaunt Building, 3011 Gulf Drive, Holmes Beach, Florida 3417 2199. The citation for this issue is (2015) 24 Nott L J. ISSN No. 0965–0660 Except as otherwise stated, 2014 Nottingham Trent University and contributors. All rights reserved. No part of this Journal may be reproduced or transmitted by any means or in any form or stored in a retrieval system of whatever kind without the prior written permission of the Editor. This does not include permitted fair dealing under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 or within the terms of a licence issued by the Copyright Licensing Agency for reprographic reproduction and/or photocopying. The authors of material in this issue have asserted their rights to be identified as such in accordance with the said Act. JOBNAME: NLJ PAGE: 1 SESS: 61 OUTPUT: Thu Sep 10 07:22:48 2015 /hling/journals/notts/132/conts24 NOTTINGHAM LAW JOURNAL VOL 24 2015 CONTENTS v EDITORIAL Helen O’Nions and Janine Griffiths-Baker ARTICLES 1 The Legal Ombudsman – Past, Present and Future Mary Seneviratne 19 Harmonisation of European Contract Law Through An ‘‘Optional Instrument’’: Principles and Practical Implications Richard Stone and Salewudin Ibrahim Thematic Articles: Legal Education 35 Introduction Jane Ching 36 Making a Virtue Of Necessity? An Opportunity to Harness Solicitors’ Attachment to The Workplace as a Place For Learning Jane Ching 67 A Future For Legal Education: Personal And Professional Development And Ethics Nigel Duncan 79 Global Challenges For Legal Education: Competing For The World’s Law Students John Flood 94 ‘‘Democracy Begins In Conversation’’’: The Phenomenology of Problem-Based Learning and Legal Education Paul Maharg 112 The Value of Legal Education Judith Welch Wegner CASE NOTES AND COMMENTARY 129 Criminal Squatting and Adverse Possession: A Case of Interpretative Logic Mark Pawlowski 137 The Issue of Standing in Judicial Review Proceedings Nick Johnson 143 Sale and Rent Back, Vendor-Purchaser Constructive Trust and Scintilla Temporis Tom Ng 149 The Role of the Jury in Relation to Claims of Insanity Hin Ting Liu and Howard Wong 156 Magna Carta, The Charter Of the Forest and the Origin Of the Jury System Allen Shoenberger iii JOBNAME: NLJ PAGE: 2 SESS: 61 OUTPUT: Thu Sep 10 07:22:48 2015 /hling/journals/notts/132/conts24 BOOK REVIEWS 163 N. Moloney EU Securities and Financial Markets Regulations Oxford University Press, 2014 Gary Wilson 167 K. Shao and S. Feng (eds.) Innovation and Intellectual Property in China: Strategies, Contexts and Challenges Edward Elgar, 2014 Janice Denoncourt 171 R. Howse Leo Strauss: Man of Peace Cambridge University Press, 2014 Elizabeth Chadwick STUDENT ESSAY PRIZES 175 NLS 50th Anniversary Essay Competition The evolution of International Criminal Justice Rhianna Ward 182 Kevin De Silva Memorial Prize Rape is Rape . .Or is it? Sam Hussaini, Nottingham University iv JOBNAME: NLJ PAGE: 1 SESS: 9 OUTPUT: Thu Sep 10 07:22:48 2015 /hling/journals/notts/132/editorial24 NOTTINGHAM LAW JOURNAL VOL. 24 2015 EDITORIAL Welcome to Volume 24 of the Nottingham Law Journal. This year I have invited Professor Janine Griffiths-Baker, Nottingham Law School’s new Dean, to present a guest introduction. Janine recently joined us from the University of South Wales and has a keen interest in teaching and research in the field of legal ethics. Janine has a PhD from the University of Bristol entitled ‘‘Fiduciary Duties, Conflicts of Interest and Chinese Walls: The Problems of Modern Legal Practice’’. She frequently acts as a consultant on regulatory issues to national associations and prominent City law firms and was one of the research team responsible for the Home Office Report Experiencing Inquests. That report had a substantial influence on the Command Paper Death Certification and Investigation and was cited in the consultation papers which led to the Coroners Act 2009. On behalf of everyone at Nottingham Law School I would like to welcome Janine and I am confident that legal research will go from strength to strength under her leadership. Professor Jane Ching introduces a collection of articles on the theme of legal education. Jane is the director of our Centre for Legal Education and these articles were specially selected from contributions to the Centre’s 2014 conference, ‘The Value of Legal Education’. Our articles on contemporary legal significance include analysis of European contract harmonisation rules by Professor Richard Stone and Salewudin Ibrahim and a timely analysis of the role of the legal services ombudsman by a name familiar to readers of the Journal, Professor Mary Seneviratne. Having previously been Head of Department and Associate Dean of Nottingham Law School, Mary retired in 2015. I would like to extend my thanks to Mary for all her hard work over the years and congratulate her on being awarded the title Professor Emerita. Volume 24 also features two prize-winning essay contributions from law students. The NLS 50th anniversary prize was awarded by Lord Saville to Rhianna Ward for her analysis of the evolution of international criminal justice. The Kevin deSilva memorial competition was won by Nottingham University student Sam Hussaini who analyses the conceptual uncertainty surrounding the crime of rape. As ever, I would like to take this opportunity to sincerely thank all our contributors, subscribers and reviewers for the vital part they play in supporting the journal. Special thanks are owed to Lord Saville for judging the winning essays in the 50th anniversary competition; to Janice Denoncourt for tirelessly editing all case-notes and book reviews; and to Carole Vaughan, our administrator extraordinaire. DR HELEN O’NIONS As the newly-appointed Dean of Nottingham Law School, I am particularly pleased to have been invited to introduce this edition of the Journal, with its special focus on legal education. In assuming my new role, I was conscious that I would be leading a School with a long tradition of producing visionaries in this area. It is not a mantle that I take up lightly, especially since the sector is currently facing radical and far-reaching v JOBNAME: NLJ PAGE: 2 SESS: 9 OUTPUT: Thu Sep 10 07:22:48 2015 /hling/journals/notts/132/editorial24 changes, but I am confident that, by embracing debate and encouraging high-quality scholarly activity, Nottingham Law School will continue to lead in this field for many years to come. The contributions in this volume raise many questions, one of which is why legal education is so important and why it often poses such challenges for those working in the field. The answer, of course, is closely connected to the subject area in which we function. Law pervades every aspect of life, from social stability, economic prosperity, public policy and civil liberties to the very concept of a fair and just society. Legal education is important because the law itself is important. This produces obvious challenges, not only because addressing legal issues is seldom an easy task, but also because we are responsible for training those who, in many different ways, will shape, administer and interpret future laws and policies. Such a situation affords considerable opportunities for us, as legal educators, to guide future direction. Yet these opportunities come with heavy responsibilities.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • A Call for Institutional Reform of the Office of Legal Counsel
    \\server05\productn\H\HLP\4-1\HLP102.txt unknown Seq: 1 11-FEB-10 17:43 A Call for Institutional Reform of the Office of Legal Counsel Bradley Lipton* INTRODUCTION The Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) has been deemed “the most impor- tant government office you’ve never heard of” by Newsweek magazine.1 In- deed, the office is extraordinarily powerful, standing as the legal arbiter of what the executive branch can and cannot do. With great power, so the saying goes, comes great responsibility—to fairly and forthrightly interpret the law, to hold the government back when it risks overreaching, and to settle disputes with an even hand. Yet during the Administration of George W. Bush, OLC let partisan political interests and ideology interfere with its function as fair-minded authority. As a result, the office has sanctioned— and the executive branch has pursued—legally unsound policies. This con- duct most prominently entered the public consciousness in two incidents: the sanctioning of torture by U.S. military forces2 and the politicization of hiring at the Department of Justice.3 The nomination of OLC head Dawn Johnsen has also recently prompted controversy.4 This Essay explains what went wrong in the Office of Legal Counsel during the Bush Administration and suggests institutional reform to prevent such problems in the future. I begin by showing how OLC’s conduct vio- lated widely held norms within the legal community. Though many observ- ers have focused on OLC’s actions authorizing torture, this Essay contends, on the basis of more recently released documents, that the office’s role per- mitting warrantless wiretapping within the United States was a unique viola- tion of lawyerly values.
    [Show full text]
  • Indirect Constraints on the Office of Legal Counsel: Examining a Role for the Senate Judiciary Committee
    Stanford Law Review Volume 73 June 2021 NOTE Indirect Constraints on the Office of Legal Counsel: Examining a Role for the Senate Judiciary Committee William S. Janover* Abstract. As arbiter of the constitutionality of executive actions, the Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) possesses vast authority over the operation of the federal government and is one of the primary vessels for the articulation of executive power. It therefore is not surprising that the OLC has found itself at the center of controversy across Democratic and Republican administrations. OLC opinions have justified the obstruction of valid congressional investigations, the targeted killing of an American citizen overseas, repeated military incursions without congressional approval, and, most infamously, torture. These episodes have generated a significant body of proposals to reform, constrain, or altogether eliminate the OLC. All of these proposals can be categorized as either direct or indirect constraints on how the OLC operates. Direct constraints target how the OLC actually creates its legal work product. Indirect constraints instead focus on the OLC’s personnel or the public scrutiny the Office’s opinions will face. This Note expands on this existing body of research, focusing on how one institution unstudied in this context, the United States Senate Judiciary Committee, can operationalize meaningful indirect constraints on the OLC. Unlike the other actors that scholars have examined, the Committee’s position outside the executive branch allows it to sidestep the President’s ever-expanding reach within the federal bureaucracy. At the same time, the Committee’s oversight powers and its central role in the nomination of both the OLC’s leader and Article III judges give it important constitutional and statutory authority to constrain the Office.
    [Show full text]
  • HLS in the World
    HLS in the World Artificial Intelligence and the Practice of Law Faculty Host: Susan Crawford ​ Participants: Edward Felten, Stasia Kelly ​ Join Edward Felten, one of the nation's leading experts on artificial intelligence, and Stasia Kelly, a leader of DLA Piper, as they discuss the effect of artificial intelligence on the practice of law. When clients get their answers from machines, what's left for lawyers to do? The Changing Political and Intellectual Landscape of Criminal Justice Reform Faculty Hosts: Andrew Crespo ’08, Carol Steiker ’86, Alex Whiting ​ ​ ​ Participants: Rachel Barkow ’96, Brook Hopkins ’07, Alan Jenkins ’89, Derecka Purnell ​ ’17, Jonathan Wroblewski The law, politics, and scholarship of criminal justice reform have been shifting in potentially tectonic ways. After several decades of increasingly punitive policies across the country which resulted in surging incarceration rates, the last several years have seen an increasingly bipartisan shift towards a critique of what has come to be called mass incarceration. Yet, the recent presidential election signals a shift in federal priorities away from a reform agenda a development that may (or may not) have consequences for the recent trajectory in favor of reform by many state and local actors. This interactive discussion explores these crosscurrents in the law, policy, and discourse surrounding our criminal justice system. Constitutionalism and Courts: A Transnational Conversation Among Judges Faculty Hosts: Vicki Jackson, Mark Tushnet ​ Participants: Rosalie Abella, Manuel Jose Cepeda LL.M. ’87, Dieter Grimm LL.M. ’65, ​ Koenraad Lenaerts LL.M. ’78, Sandile Ngcobo LL.M. ’86 A moderated discussion among justices from high courts around the world about, among other topics, the challenges they face, the ways they interpret their constitutions and similar documents, and the role of international and comparative law in their work.
    [Show full text]
  • Congressional Record United States Th of America PROCEEDINGS and DEBATES of the 113 CONGRESS, FIRST SESSION
    E PL UR UM IB N U U S Congressional Record United States th of America PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE 113 CONGRESS, FIRST SESSION Vol. 159 WASHINGTON, WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 13, 2013 No. 161 Senate The Senate met at 10 a.m. and was and what we have focused on in recent tom-made medications for patients called to order by the President pro months is the problem we have with with unique health needs that cannot tempore (Mr. LEAHY). judges. be treated by off-the-shelf prescription Yesterday my friend did a remark- medicines. This practice is essential PRAYER ably good job in leading a precedent in- and can be critical for children, cancer The Chaplain, Dr. Barry C. Black, of- dicating the issues we have with the patients, and people with severe aller- fered the following prayer: DC Circuit, and I so appreciate his gies. Let us pray. leadership on this issue and all the The contaminated medicine mixed at Spirit of God, descend on our hearts, other issues on which the Judiciary the New England Compounding Center for apart from You life is a tale full of Committee works. It is too bad we can- was sent to scores of medical facilities sound and fury signifying nothing. not have the Judiciary Committee as it in 23 different States and given to May our Senators walk in Your ways, was in our earlier years in the Senate 14,000 patients. As I have indicated, 64 keeping Your precepts with such integ- where the productivity of that com- of them died and hundreds of those pa- rity that they will never be ashamed.
    [Show full text]
  • Non-Judicial Review
    Georgetown University Law Center Scholarship @ GEORGETOWN LAW 2003 Non-Judicial Review Mark V. Tushnet Georgetown University Law Center, [email protected] This paper can be downloaded free of charge from: https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/facpub/235 40 Harv. J. on Legis. 453-492 (2003) This open-access article is brought to you by the Georgetown Law Library. Posted with permission of the author. Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/facpub Part of the Constitutional Law Commons GEORGETOWN LAW Faculty Publications February 2010 Non-Judicial Review 40 Harv. J. on Legis. 453-492 (2003) Mark V. Tushnet Professor of Law Georgetown University Law Center [email protected] This paper can be downloaded without charge from: Scholarly Commons: http://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/facpub/235/ Posted with permission of the author ESSAY NON-JUDICIAL REVIEW MARK TuSHNET* Professor Mark Tushnet challenges the view that democratic constitutional­ ism requires courts to dominate constitutional review. He provides three di­ verse examples of non-judicial institutions involved in constitutional review and examines the institutional incentives to get the analysis" right." Through these examples, Professor Tushnet argues that non-judicial actors may per­ form constitutional review that is accurate, effective, and capable of gaining public acceptance. Professor Tushnet recommends that scholars conduct further research into non-judicial review to determine whether ultimately more or less judicial review is necessary in constitutional democracies. If nothing else, familiarity leads us to assume that constitutional re­ view must occur in courts and that non-judicial actors-politicians, said in a disparaging tone of voice-would fail to do a decent job of constitu­ tional review were they given the chance.' Courts are said to be distinc­ tively the forum of principle,2 the legislature and executive the forum of politics.
    [Show full text]
  • THE LAW PRESIDENTS MAKE Daphna Renan*
    COPYRIGHT © 2017 VIRGINIA LAW REVIEW ASSOCIATION THE LAW PRESIDENTS MAKE Daphna Renan* The standard conception of executive branch legal review in the scholarship is a quasi-judicial Office of Legal Counsel (“OLC”) dispensing formal, written opinions binding on the executive branch. That structure of executive branch legalism did have a brief heyday. But it obscures core characteristics of contemporary practice. A different structure of executive branch legalism—informal, diffuse, and intermingled in its approach to lawyers, policymakers, and political leadership—has gained new prominence. This Article documents, analyzes, and assesses that transformation. Scholars have suggested that the failure of OLC to constrain presidential power in recent publicized episodes means that executive branch legalism should become more court-like. They have mourned what they perceive to be a disappearing external constraint on the presidency. Executive branch legalism has never been an exogenous or external check on presidential power, however. It is a tool of presidential administration itself. Exploring changes in the structure of executive branch legal review sheds light on the shifting needs of the * Assistant Professor, Harvard Law School. From 2009–2012, I served in the Justice Department as Counsel to the Deputy Attorney General and then as an Attorney Advisor in the Office of Legal Counsel. The views expressed are my own and the discussion is based only on publicly available materials. For generous engagement with this project at various stages,
    [Show full text]
  • Guidelines for the President's Legal Advisors
    Guidelines for the President's Legal Advisors INTRODUCTON* At the outset of the twenty-first century, the President's constitutional and statutory powers are the subject of serious controversy among political leaders, legal academics, the American public, and the international community alike. The "war on terror," that followed the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks in particular has brought assertions of new and expansive presidential authority regarding enemy combatants, military tribunals, preemptive self-defense and warrantless domestic wiretaps, torture and other extreme interrogation techniques. Each assertion raises new variations on enduring questions about the Constitution's allocation of governmental power and the protections it affords individuals from governmental abuses, as well as about how constitutional principles should affect the interpretation of federal statutes that purport to constrain governmental authority. Unchanging, however, and essential to understanding presidential power, is the President's overriding obligation to exercise executive authority in conformity with the law. Presidents are not constrained merely by whatever checks Congress and the courts might impose; congressional oversight and judicial review by their nature provide only limited safeguards against presidential abuse. Rather, the constitutional text and structure, as well as longstanding practice, affirmatively obligate Presidents to ensure that their actions comply with all relevant constitutional, statutory, and other legal requirements. On assuming office, Presidents must take an oath to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution."' Presidents also must "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.",2 And to uphold the Constitution and faithfully execute the laws, Presidents need good legal advice. From our nation's earliest days, Presidents have recognized their need for legal counsel.
    [Show full text]
  • Full Article
    THE HYDRAULIC THEORY OF OPPOSITION Ian M. Swenson * For many years scholars and the public have assumed that Circuit Court confirmation hearings, like Supreme Court confirmation hearings, are con- tentious and focused on hot button issues such as abortion. In fact, this article will show that prior to the Trump administration Circuit Court nom- inees were rarely questioned about abortion and hearings were rarely con- tentious. But in the 115th Congress (the first two years of the Trump ad- ministration) the majority of nominees were questioned about abortion— some of them at great length. This article seeks to explain this change in senatorial behavior and suggests that it is the result of legal and political pressures on the senators as well as changes to Senate procedures. This is the Hydraulic Theory of Opposition. The legal and political pressures on * JD, New York University School of Law, 2019. My thanks to Dean Trevor Morrison for his supervision. My thanks also to Luke Goveas, Cameron Sinsheimer, and Nicholas Gallagher, for their smart and helpful edits. Thanks finally to the editors of the Journal of Law & Liberty for their terrific work preparing this article for publication. 205 206 New York University Journal of Law & Liberty [Vol. 14:205 the Democratic senators drive them to oppose these nominees based on the nominees’ presumed position vis-à-vis abortion; and the way the Senate structures its procedures determines how this opposition manifests. Because the Senate has eliminated sub rosa forms of opposition—such as the filibus- ter and Blue Slips—contentious confirmation hearings are now how that opposition manifests.
    [Show full text]
  • ACADEMIC FREEDOM Andacademic DUTY Final Program
    Final Program Amended December 9, 2011 ACADEMIC FREEDOM and ACADEMIC 2012 ANNUAL MEETING JANUARY 4–8, 2012 DUTY WASHINGTON, DC w w w.aals.org/am2012/ THE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN LAW SCHOOLS SPONSORS OF THE AssOCIATION OF AMERICAN LAW SCHOOls AALS would like to thank and recognize the following organizations and law schools for their generous contributions to support the association’s many goals and activities. Foundational Gifts ($100,000 or more) West, a Thomson Reuters business Foundation Press, a Thomson Reuters business Printing Directory of Law Teachers, Journal of Legal Education, AALS Newsletter, 2012 Annual Meeting Final Program Sponsor Gifts ($15,000 to $25,000) Lexis Nexis Sponsorship of 2012 Annual Meeting Convention Tote Bags for Registrants Wolters Kluwer Law & Business Lanyards, Badge Holders, Badge Envelopes for 2011-2012 Professional Development Programs and 2012 Annual Meeting and One Day of Refreshment Breaks at 2011 Workshop for New Law School Teachers Contributor Gift ($10,000 to $15,000) Carolina Academic Press Financial Support of Annual Meeting 2012 Inaugural Law and Film Series Law School Admission Council (LSAC) Financial Support of 2012 Workshop for Pretenured People of Color Law School Teachers We would like to thank the following for their donations to AALS for the 2011-2012 Academic Year Complete Equity Markets, Inc. 2012 Annual Meeting Continental Breakfast for Section Officers Gonzaga University School of Law Sponsored Food at the Reception for Registrants at the 2011 Conference on the Future of the Law
    [Show full text]
  • Advise & Consent
    The Los Angeles County Bar Association Appellate Courts Section Presents Advise & Consent: A Primer to the Federal Judicial Appointment Process Wednesday, October 28, 2020 Program - 12:00 - 1:30 PM Zoom Webinar CLE Credit: 1.5 Hours Credit (including Appellate Courts Specialization) Provider #36 The Los Angeles County Bar Association is a State Bar of California approved MCLE provider. The Los Angles County Bar Association certifies that this activity has been approved for MCLE credit by the State Bar of California. PANELIST BIOS Judge Kenneth Lee (Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals) Kenneth Kiyul Lee is a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The U.S. Senate confirmed him on May 15, 2019, making him the nation’s first Article III judge born in the Republic of Korea. Prior to his appointment, Judge Lee was a partner at the law firm of Jenner & Block in Los Angeles, where he handled a wide variety of complex litigation matters and had a robust pro bono practice. Judge Lee previously served as an Associate Counsel to President George W. Bush and as Special Counsel to Senator Arlen Specter, then-chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee. He started his legal career as an associate at Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz in New York. Judge Lee is a 2000 magna cum laude graduate of Harvard Law School and a 1997 summa cum laude graduate of Cornell University. He clerked for Judge Emilio M. Garza of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit from 2000 to 2001. Judge Leslie Southwick (Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals) Leslie Southwick was appointed to the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Skeptical Scrutiny of Plenary Power: Judicial and Executive Branch Decision Making in Miller V Albright
    Georgetown University Law Center Scholarship @ GEORGETOWN LAW 1998 Skeptical Scrutiny Of Plenary Power: Judicial and Executive Branch Decision Making in Miller v Albright Cornelia T. Pillard Georgetown University Law Center, [email protected] T. Alexander Aleinikoff This paper can be downloaded free of charge from: https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/facpub/721 1 Sup. Ct. Rev. 1-70 (1998) This open-access article is brought to you by the Georgetown Law Library. Posted with permission of the author. Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/facpub Part of the Civil Rights and Discrimination Commons, Constitutional Law Commons, Immigration Law Commons, and the Military, War, and Peace Commons CORNELIA T. L. PILLARD AND T. ALEXANDER ALEINIKOFF SKEPTICAL SCRUTINY OF PLENARY POWER: JUDICIAL AND EXECUTIVE BRANCH DECISION MAKING IN MILLER v ALBRIGHT In 1996, just a few months after the United States successfully urged the Supreme Court in United States v Virginia' to invalidate as sex-discriminatory the male-only admissions policy at the Vir- ginia Military Institute, the District of Columbia Circuit in Miller v Albright2 upheld a federal law that used an express, sex-based Cornelia Pillard is Associate Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center. She is currently on leave to work in the U.S. Department ofJustice as Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel. T. Alexander Aleinikoff is Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center. AUTHORS' NOTE: We would like to thank Catherine W. Brown, David D. Cole, Walter E. Dellinger III, Edward C. DuMont, Vicki C. Jackson, Edwin S. Kneedler, Martin S.
    [Show full text]
  • Senate the Senate Met at 10 A.M
    E PL UR UM IB N U U S Congressional Record United States th of America PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE 114 CONGRESS, SECOND SESSION Vol. 162 WASHINGTON, TUESDAY, MAY 17, 2016 No. 78 Senate The Senate met at 10 a.m. and was infrastructure funding bill. The Repub- already begun considering two more of called to order by the President pro lican-led Senate did so in record early them this week. The first measure is tempore (Mr. HATCH). time. We began considering an annual the transportation and housing infra- f appropriations bill this year at the ear- structure bill. It will make smart in- liest point in 40 years—40 years—and vestments in important infrastructure PRAYER then we passed an annual appropria- priorities. It will strengthen our sur- The Chaplain, Dr. Barry C. Black, of- tions bill this year at the earliest point face transportation network and help fered the following prayer: in 40 years. Passage of this bill also make air travel safer, more efficient, Let us pray. marks the first time the Senate has and more reliable. Eternal God, who hears our prayers passed an individual energy and water I thank Senator COLLINS for her dedi- and listens to our cries for help, thank funding measure since 2009. cated leadership on this important leg- You for Your mercies that come to us This shows what is possible with a islation. new each day. You save us with Your little cooperation and regular order. By The second measure is the Veterans strength, continually showing us Your returning to regular order, we are bet- and Military Construction funding bill.
    [Show full text]