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).
ANOTHER: More thoughts on the article here.
Recent Comments