Volume 24:1 – Fall issue featuring two developments articles is now online!
The Developments section of the George Mason Law Review seeks to address the frequent critique that legal scholarship is increasingly disconnected from the needs of the bar by providing shorter essays on timely legal subjects. Through this section, we hope the George Mason Law Review will position itself at the early stages of scholarly dialogue – among academics, practitioners, and judges – fostering emerging topics before they become the subject of longer, traditional scholarly articles.
For our Fall, 2016 issue, our Developments section reached out to Professor Jonathan Adler, the Johan Verheij Memorial Professor of Law and Director of the Center for Business Law & Regulation at Case Western Reserve University School of Law and John Ehrett, a Yale Law Student, Knight Law & Media Scholar, and 2015-2016 Petitions of the Day/Petitions to Watch SCOTUSblog writer. We asked each of them to articulate arguments on opposite sides of the national debate surrounding the Senate’s refusal to vote on President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee, Merrick Garland. In the following essays, the authors analyze whether the Senate has a constitutional obligation to affirmatively act on a President’s Supreme Court nomination; each author reaches a different conclusion. Mr. Ehrett argues that a perpetual refusal to vote on nominees by the Senate not only results in the Court’s disabled ability to adjudicate effectively, but could result in the annihilation of the Court’s ability to function entirely. On the other hand, Professor Adler argues that the Constitution affords the Senate the right to vote down a nominee, and therefore also affords the Senate the right to refuse to vote on a nominee at all.
It is the hope of both authors, along with the George Mason Law Review, that these articles will help the reader better understand the constitutional arguments regarding this widely debated topic, and will help to inform the ongoing debate on both sides of the aisle.
Through its Developments section, the George Mason Law Review seeks to address the oft-heard critique that legal scholarship is increasingly disconnected from the needs of the bar. Developments operates on a shorter publishing timeline and it posts essays online as soon as they are completed. Although Developments focuses on an online publication to support quick availability, we still offer the prestige of printed publication in a nationally-recognized general interest journal, and the full host of research, editing, and publicity support provided to all of the Law Review’s published authors. Through this process, we hope the George Mason Law Review will position itself at the early stages of scholarly dialogue – among academics, practitioners, and judges – fostering emerging topics before they become the subject of longer, traditional scholarly articles.
Developments reached out to Professor David Crump of the University of Houston School of Law, offering to publish his article entitled “Goodbye, “Reasonably Calculated”; You’re Replaced by “Proportionality”: Deciphering the New Federal Scope of Discovery” in March of 2016. Professor Crump’s article analyzes the amended Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1), which has changed the scope of civil discovery from a standard of “reasonably calculated” to one of “proportionality”. Professor Crump diligently explores the new standard for discoverable evidence, outlining the nuances of the amended rule and explaining the manner in which attorneys should approach the amended rule when advocating for or against the discoverability of particular pieces of evidence, as well as how judges should think about the amended rule when making evidentiary determinations. Professor Crump, along with the George Mason Law Review, hopes that this article can condense the learning curve for this reformed standard, leading to more efficient litigation, and a better understanding of the procedural rules that govern federal courts on a day-to-day basis.