The Int. Law Observer Blog is continuously looking for enthusiastic master student(s) or Ph.D. candidate(s) willing to assist with editorial work on the Blog. Interested? Find out more here.

Home » Feature, Publications

LSN Legal Writing eJournal, Vol. 10 No. 11, 04/20/2015

Submitted by on 22/04/2015 – 10:21 amNo Comment


Vol. 10, No. 11: Apr 20, 2015

Sponsored by the Legal Writing Institute

About this eJournal

The Legal Writing Institute’s SSRN eJournal distributes working and accepted paper abstracts that relate to all issues in the legal writing field. The journal seeks articles that cover topics including (1) effective ways to teach legal writing; (2) the doctrine of legal writing and lawyering, including persuasive and effective techniques; (3) legal research; (4) oral communication and advocacy; and (5) other related topics to legal writing.

Table of contents

LAURA RAY, Widener University – School of Law

‘The Hindrance of a Law Degree’: Justice Kagan on Law and Experience”
Maryland Law Review Endnotes, v. 74, p. 10, 2015
Widener Law School Legal Studies Research Paper No. 15-09

In her brief tenure on the Supreme Court, Justice Elena Kagan has already proved to be an innovative opinion writer who enlivens her opinions with colloquial diction, metaphors drawn from common experience, and invitations to the reader to participate in her analytic process. Those rhetorical strategies reflect her belief that Supreme Court opinions can and should be accessible to lay readers as well as trained lawyers. They also reflect a more subversive position, that legal doctrine itself should be grounded in common experience and therefore understandable by non-lawyers who are already capable of assessing issues of responsibility and fairness.

ANDREW JENSEN KERR, Georgetown University Law Center

“Writing about Non-Persons”
University of Pennsylvania Law Review Online, Vol. 164, 2015, Forthcoming

In this essay I respond to Brandon Garrett’s recent article, “The Constitutional Standing of Corporations.” Professor Garrett’s article employs the heuristic of “effective litigation” to measure the symmetry between organizations and individuals when personal constitutional rights are concerned. Professor Garrett correctly derides the group-individual equation of religious identity in Hobby Lobby as bad logic and bad policy. But I ask: what does “effective litigation” mean? And are there prudential concerns that should quiet any call for constitutional rules of recognition to be “drawn broadly and evenhandedly” to build doctrinal coherence? I argue that the legal writing analytic of core theory provides a proxy for this heuristic of effective litigation, but also that recognition of the analogue debate of animals as Fourteenth Amendment persons might destroy the already fractured architecture of standing doctrine.


 *Information courtesy of LEGAL WRITING eJOURNAL
Last 5 posts by Student Editor