Founded in 1927, Temple Law Review is a student-edited, quarterly journal dedicated to providing a forum for the expression of new legal thought and scholarly commentary on important developments, trends, and issues in the law.
Some notable watch lists are the No Fly List (banning certain individuals from any type of air travel) and the Selectee List (subjecting select individuals to enhanced screening whenever they attempt to travel).
These watch lists, while nominally used to keep track of the identities of certain individuals determined to be potential threats, are also used as a means to curtail certain freedoms, especially the freedom to travel. After Omar Mateen’s recent attack on the Orlando Pulse nightclub, for example, members of Congress considered using the No Fly List and Selectee List as tools to enforce gun control measures, known as “No Fly, No Buy” legislation.
What is so awful about a law requiring the burial or cremation of fetal remains? These pieces of legislation represent an unsettling trend in the anti-abortion movement—a trend by which the fetus is treated like a legal person, leading to instances in which the rights of the fetus may outweigh the rights of the pregnant woman. As a result, fetal burial and cremation laws present a direct threat to the right to a safe, legal abortion.
But what TLR@90 really illuminates is that, like much of what’s best at Temple Law School, the best thing about Temple Law Review has always been its people. It’s impossible to look around this room, filled with former and current members of the Temple Law Review, and conclude otherwise.
On March 22, 2018, Professor Robert J. Reinstein sat down with Temple Law Review editorial board members Kevin Trainer, Sonya C. Bishop, and David A. Nagdeman. The following is a condensed transcript of their conversation.
What justifies our failure to engage all students in discussions of the justice gap, and of our obligation to do something about it? The limited attention we give to the subject is especially strange given our extensive focus on questions of ethics. Without minimizing the importance of the rules that prohibit us from failing to act zealously on behalf of our clients, from misusing client funds, and from divulging confidences and avoiding conflicts, isn’t it also a significant ethical issue that most people of low and even moderate means are unable obtain any legal help at all?
Temple Law Review will host its annual symposium, “Taxpayer Rights in the United States: All the Angles,” on Friday, Oct. 26 in Klein Hall located at 1719 N. Broad St. Description below. Five substantive CLE credits are available for attendees. Online registration is open and questions may be directed to Symposium Editors Andrea Smith and […]
Temple University Beasley School of Law and its professors launched me on a professional journey that continues to challenge and fulfill me. I owe my interest in the practice of criminal defense to Professor Edward Ohlbaum, under whom I studied evidence and trial advocacy while a student at the law school.
Given the wonderful benefits combined with profound uncertainties about law reviews’ current usefulness, what are we to do? No clear answer presents itself. As in other challenges in life, the most appropriate route is the one currently followed by the recent editorial boards of Temple Law Review: experiment and innovate.
Busy decision makers necessarily have short attention spans. Maybe it’s time to rethink the heavy, three-hundred-footnote law review article as a model for good legal writing. Practically speaking, judges do not have time to read lengthy, heavily-footnoted briefs, and busy lawyers do not have time to produce that kind of writing in practice, nor are clients typically willing to pay for such work.
Time is the mortal enemy of law reviews. Student editors have only a year to complete their work. They must balance editing with their personal lives, class work, and job hunting. And they must do it while learning how to manage people and their own time. There is no human resources department, no overtime pay, a modest budget, no support staff, and minimal guidance from above. The publishing cycle demands that topics be submitted far in advance of the publication date, a tricky business when the law is subject to change at any time.