Defending Defenders: Remarks on Nichol and Pierce

Both Nichol and Pierce, as devotees of grand theory, are interested in analyzing Scalia\u27s agenda, however described. They view Defenders as a fundamental change in the Court\u27s standing jurisprudence, in part because of the symbolism they and their fellow detractors impart to the decision. In contrast, the author is apparently a miniaturist, at least when it comes to the possibility of grand theories and broader agendas. Like Justice Kennedy, the author does not read Justice Scalia\u27s opinion to hold that Congress cannot confer standing by defining an injury and relating it to a class of persons entitled to sue

Introductory Remarks

In the interpretation of any statute, there are at least three sources of understanding one can look to: the text, the legislators who penned it, and the judges who interpret it. The methodological problem for lawyers is how to make use of each source of knowledge in attempting to know the law. Judges Abner Mikva and Kenneth Starr, both from the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, join issue in the following debate about the correct weight, if any, to give to legislative history in interpreting a statute\u27s meaning

Recent Developments in OSHA Litigation

After almost a year serving as the Solicitor of Labor, I can attest to the difficult challenges the Department of Labor will face and must overcome in the years ahead if it is to continue to be a dynamic and positive force in setting our Nation\u27s labor policy. Indeed, I believe that current rulemaking and enforcement litigation on behalf of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration foreshadows significant issues the Department must resolve in the near future. This article focuses on two such OSH Act issues of current prominence: one, litigation challenges to OSHA rulemaking; and two, the use of voluntary health and safety audits in OSHA enforcement proceedings

Rabbi Joseph Soloveitchik’s ‘Confrontation’: A Reassessment

Responding to a recent symposium on Rabbi Joseph Soloveitchik\u27s 1964 article on the propriety of Christian-Jewish dialogue, this essay begins by assessing several arguments put forth by Soloveitchik. These include the incommensurability of religious faith, the risks interreligious dialogue presents to the Jewish minority, the dangers of syncretism, and the ability to separate neatly the sacred and the profane. The article then proceeds to discuss the nature of Catholic-Jewish today, and concludes with thoughts about the future of Christian and Jewish interaction

Indeterminacy and Craft in Judicial Review of Administrative Law: A Comment on Shapiro and Levy

This Essay begins by examining whether more precise codification of statutory scope of review language will actually bring about a greater degree of determinacy in judicial decisions, and explains the reasons why indeterminacy currently exists. The proposed Shapiro and Levy standard is discussed next, as is their reliance on public choice theory to explain judicial behavior. Finally, this Essay concludes that while Shapiro and Levy raise interesting points, their quest for judicial determinacy is misguided

Accountability and the Adjudication of the Public Interest

In these remarks, I will speak briefly about the question of a lawyer\u27s accountability to clients in public interest law. This is the fundamental theoretical problem confronting the public interest law movement, at least from the point of view of traditional models of adjudication