Like every academic journal, the Harvard Law Review has rigorous editorial processes governing how it solicits, evaluates, and determines when and whether to publish a piece. An intrinsic feature of these internal processes is the confidentiality of our 104 editors’ perspectives and deliberations. Last week, the full body met and deliberated over whether to publish a particular Blog piece that had been solicited by two editors. A substantial majority voted not to proceed with publication.
More from the Blog
-
Trading Jabs Over Tradition
Tradition. It’s the talk of the town — especially in originalist circles. But what role should it play in constitutional argument? Even fellow originalists... -
Methodological Convergence in Community Financial Services
My colleague, Thomas E. Nielsen, just published a thought-provoking post detailing some of the methodological approaches at play in CFPB v. Community Financial Services...Response To:
-
Community Financial Services and the Intramural Debate over Novelty and Tradition
On May 16th, the Supreme Court handed down CFPB v. Community Financial Services Association of America, rejecting the Fifth Circuit’s conclusion that the CFPB’s...