I'll have more to say about this piece later today (or tomorrow), but this mistake is surely revealing about the intentions of the author:
But citable law review articles are vastly outnumbered, it appears, by head-scratchers. ?There is evidence that law review articles have left terra firma to soar into outer space,? said the Supreme Court Justice Stephen G. Breyer in a 2008 speech.
Some articles are intra-academy tiffs that could interest only the combatants (like ?What Is Wrong With Kamm?s and Scanlon?s Arguments Against Taurek? from The Journal of Ethics & Social Philosophy).
The Journal of Ethics and Social Philosophy is not a law review, it's a peer-reviewed philosophy journal.? And the article in question is written by a philosophy professor at the University of Vermont.? And it concerns arguments by three philosophers:? Kamm, Scanlon, and Taurek.? So what in the world does this have to do with what's in law review articles?? Nothing.
UPDATE:? Some colleagues have already written about the article, including Matt Bodie (St. Louis) and Larry Ribstein (Illinois).
Source: http://leiterlawschool.typepad.com/leiter/2011/11/todays-ny-times-article-on-legal-education-1.html
world series tickets nelson cruz nelson cruz michael young war of the worlds detroit lions donovan mcnabb
কোন মন্তব্য নেই:
একটি মন্তব্য পোস্ট করুন