10 research outputs found
Dean Debbie Bell: Extraordinary Administrator
No full textThis article pays tribute to the impactful leadership of Dean Debbie Bell at the University of Mississippi School of Law. The author highlights her decades-long commitment to legal education, administrative excellence, and student advocacy. Nowlin reflects on Bell’s ability to navigate complex institutional challenges with grace, integrity, and a deep sense of service. The article underscores her legacy in fostering inclusivity, academic rigor, and community within the law school. Ultimately, it presents Dean Bell as a model of quiet but transformative leadership in legal academia
Roe v. Wade Inverted: How the Supreme Court Might Have Privileged Fetal Rights over Reproductive Freedoms
No full textIn Roe v. Wade, the United States Supreme Court privileged reproductive freedoms over fetal rights, but what if the Court had done the reverse in resolving the question of abortion under the Constitution-elevating fetal rights over reproductive freedoms? How might the Supreme Court have justified such a holding? What arguments, doctrines, and cases would the Court have invoked? What might concurring and dissenting opinions have said in response? A full analysis of these questions requires an exploration of a range of issues: the basis of constitutional personhood, the suspect nature of birth-status classifications, the fundamentality of access to the protections of the criminal law, and the application of heightened scrutiny to permissive abortion regimes. The resolution of these issues turns on cross-cutting questions concerning the appropriate methods of constitutional interpretation, the proper judicial role, and the rights and wrongs of abortion policy. This Article also follows Lon Fuller's classic article The Case of the Speluncean Explorers in taking the imaginative format of a hypothetical case set in a hypothetical jurisdiction with a series of fictional judicial opinions addressing the issues: a majority opinion, a concurrence, and a dissent. This unconventional format allows the Article to reimagine Roe v. Wade in a particularly vivid fashion that closely tracks the Court's original opinions and analyses. The Article's hypothetical case involves an equal protection challenge to a permissive abortion regime. The hypothetical jurisdiction is a variation on the United States in which the Court in Roe v. Wade upheld, rather than invalidated, antiabortion legislation. The fictional judicial opinions advance with equal vigor arguments for and against expansive protections for the unborn under the Equal Protection Clause. Part II of this Article discusses in more detail the recurrent project of rewriting Roe and the aims of this Article in reimagining Roe; Part III provides background on the Article's hypothetical jurisdiction and sets out the hypothetical opinions of the justices; and Part IV offers a conclusion
\u3ci\u3eRoe v. Wade\u3c/i\u3e Inverted: How the Supreme Court Might Have Privileged Fetal Rights Over Reproductive Freedoms
No full textIn Roe v. Wade, the United States Supreme Court privileged reproductive freedoms over fetal rights, but what if the Court had done the reverse in resolving the question of abortion under the Constitution- elevating fetal rights over reproductive freedoms? How might the Supreme Court have justified such a holding? What arguments, doctrines, and cases would the Court have invoked? What might concurring and dissenting opinions have said in response? A full analysis of these questions requires an exploration of a range of issues: the basis of constitutional personhood, the suspect nature of birth-status classifications, the fundamentality of access to the protections of the criminal law, and the application of heightened scrutiny to permissive abortion regimes. The resolution of these issues turns on cross-cutting questions concerning the appropriate methods of constitutional interpretation, the proper judicial role, and the rights and wrongs of abortion policy.
This Article examines these questions and demonstrates, as a conceptual matter, that the Supreme Court could have established a fetal right to the equal protection of the criminal laws as plausibly as it established a right to abortion in Roe, but that such a decision would have been subject to the very same kinds of substantive objections as the decision in Roe-grounded in commitments to historically-oriented interpretive methods, judicial restraint, and rival abortion policies. The central purpose of this Article is to advance the debate over the constitutional status of abortion by moving that debate outside of its familiar Roe-centered analytical grooves. This Article will show that the range of reasonable argument on the question of abortion under the Constitution is broader than is commonly conceived and extends well beyond familiar choices-protecting a right to abortion or deferring to legislative prohibitions of abortion-to protecting the rights of the unborn from a denial of the equal protection of the criminal laws embodied in permissive abortion laws. This Article builds on the perennial project of rewriting Roe v. Wade, but it broadens that project to include a fundamental reimagining of the Court\u27s encounter with abortion as an equal protection challenge in defense of fetal rights. The inversion in the title of this Article refers to the studied use of points of argument from the original Roe opinions to support their mirror-image opposites in an equal protection analysis.
This Article also follows Lon Fuller\u27s classic article The Case of the Speluncean Explorers in taking the imaginative format of a hypothetical case set in a hypothetical jurisdiction with a series of fictional judicial opinions addressing the issues: a majority opinion, a concurrence, and a dissent. This unconventional format allows the Article to reimagine Roe v. Wade in a particularly vivid fashion that closely tracks the Court\u27s original opinions and analyses. The Article\u27s hypothetical case involves an equal protection challenge to a permissive abortion regime. The hypothetical jurisdiction is a variation on the United States in which the Court in Roe v. Wade upheld, rather than invalidated, antiabortion legislation. The fictional judicial opinions advance with equal vigor arguments for and against expansive protections for the unborn under the Equal Protection Clause. Part II of this Article discusses in more detail the recurrent project of rewriting Roe and the aims of this Article in reimagining Roe; Part III provides background on the Article\u27s hypothetical jurisdiction and sets out the hypothetical opinions of the justices; and Part IV offers a conclusion
The Judicial Restraint Amendment: Populist Constitutional Reform in the Spirit of the Bill of Rights
No full textChapter 7. Judicial Moral Expertise and Real-World Constraints on Judicial Moral Reasoning
No full textThe Constitutional Illegitimacy of Expansive Judicial Power: A Populist Structural Interpretive Analysis
No full text
Dean Debbie Bell: Extraordinary Administrator
No full textThis summary highlights the exceptional administrative career of Dean Debbie Bell, showcasing her significant contributions to academic leadership and institutional advancement. Dean Bell is recognized for her innovative approach to administration, which has greatly enhanced the effectiveness and reputation of her institution. Her tenure is marked by strategic initiatives that have transformed academic programs, fostered community engagement, and promoted a culture of excellence and inclusion.
Under her leadership, the institution has seen notable improvements in operational efficiency, faculty development, and student success. Dean Bell's ability to navigate complex administrative challenges, coupled with her commitment to visionary goals, has established her as a distinguished figure in academic administration. Her impact is evident in the institution's enhanced academic standing and the positive outcomes for students and faculty alike
Recommended from our members
That Eminent Tribunal ::Judicial Supremacy and the Constitution /
No full textThe role of the United States Supreme Court has been deeply controversial throughout American history. Should the Court undertake the task of guarding a wide variety of controversial and often unenumerated rights? Or should it confine itself to enforcing specific constitutional provisions, leaving other issues (even those of rights) to the democratic process? That Eminent Tribunal brings together a distinguished group of legal scholars and political scientists who argue that the Court's power has exceeded its appropriate bounds, and that sound republican principles require greater limits on that power. They reach this conclusion by an interesting variety of paths, and despite varied political convictions. Some of the essays debate the explicit claims to constitutional authority laid out by the Supreme Court itself in Planned Parenthood v. Casey and similar cases, and others focus on the defenses of judicial authority found commonly in legal scholarship (e.g., the allegedly superior moral reasoning of judges, or judges' supposed track record of superior political decision making). The authors find these arguments wanting and contend that the principles of republicanism and the contemporary form of judicial review exercised by the Supreme Court are fundamentally incompatible. The contributors include Hadley Arkes, Gerard V. Bradley, George Liebmann, Michael McConnell, Robert F. Nagel, Jack Wade Nowlin, Steven D. Smith, Jeremy Waldron, Keith E. Whittington, Christopher Wolfe, and Michael P. Zuckert
Publication trends among internal medicine residents, fellows, and graduates and its relationship to future academic achievement
No full textBackground: Medical research is essential for establishing evidence-based care and furthering clinical practice knowledge for the success of physicians. For example, research is considered a scholarly activity by the American College of Graduate Medical Education and is a requirement during residency (1). Furthermore, research is used as a tool to measure academic success given that it allows for a qualitative measure for residency and fellowship applications. Publication trends among internal medicine have previously been studied (2,3); however, our follow-up study also adjusts for gender when comparing research success and outcomes. Our primary objective is to assess the influence that research in medical school has on residency success by analyzing fellowship placement, h-index scores, and continued research success measured by publications.Methods: Using Doximity residency navigator, we reviewed internal medicine graduates from 50 randomly sampled residency programs. From each included program, publicly available graduate records were obtained and included for identification of each graduate. After extracting our list of graduates, each graduate was searched on SCOPUS for degree, gender, fellowship pursued, h-index, academics pursued, and publications. Microsoft Excel and Stata 15.1 were used for all statistical analysis functions.Results: Our initial search of internal medicine residency programs yielded 530 programs of which we randomly sampled 50 programs. Among the 50 programs, 328 graduates were identified and included in our analysis. Over half of our sample were males with the most common fellowship pursued being cardiology (Table 1). Graduates with first authorship publication prior to residency were more likely to pursue a fellowship or go into academic medicine (Table 2).Conclusion: Our study found that graduates with primary author publication before residency were more likely to go into academic medicine or pursue a fellowship after internal medicine residency. Given that Internal medicine provides several options following residency, research provides a qualitative measure of academic performance and future success. Our study highlighted no difference among gender and future career success. These results are comparable to other studies (2,3). In conclusion, total publications, first author publication, and h-index scores independently indicate a significant positive correlation in pursuing a fellowship or academic medicine after residency
