Search

The problem to be faced in regulating cryptocurrency is the general thrust of the 'governance paradox' (1)--how do you regulate an innovative scheme that demands some regulation in the public [...]

As with most other things, the fortunes of jurisprudence ebb and flow. After an extended period of scholarly dominance, the past few years have witnessed a relative decline in its [...]

Donoghue’s neighbour is still the defining concept of Canadian tort law. Indeed, the whole history of modern negligence law can be reasonably understood as a concerted judicial effort to adapt and accommodate that principle to changing social, commercial and legal conditions. Now, 90 years later, it is perhaps time to recommend another revolution in negligence law. The Donoghue-inspired doctrine has done sterling work, but it is now weighed down with a bewildering range of conditions, clarifications and complications. When the duty analysis is complemented by other related requirements of causation and remoteness, the law of negligence has become something of a dog’s breakfast. This is compounded by the fact that tort law has become the poster-child for a general shift in law away from traditional legal reasoning to a more openly acknowledged policy analysis. This is no bad thing. But the problem is that there exist multi-dimensional and multi-located doctrinal occasions for such policy work. This does not lend itself to a doctrinal product that is either readily accessible or easily understandable. As such, the time is ripe for transforming, if not revolutionizing negligence law. This essay seeks to engage in such a transformative analysis and prescription. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The United States Supreme Court's decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization marked a constitutional reckoning, with pervasive and inescapable consequences for many Americans. This article discusses this constitutional reckoning in two senses. First, it was a reckoning with the Court's own precedent, as it overturned nearly fifty years of precedent on abortion rights. Second, it was a reckoning with the Court's role in American society, as it raised fundamental questions about the Court's legitimacy and its ability to protect the rights of minorities. This article begins by outlining a history of abortion rights in the United States, from the early days of the republic to the present day. The Court's landmark decision in Roe v. Wade in 1973 established a constitutional right to abortion; and while it was a controversial decision, it has been challenged ever since. The Dobbs decision, like every other decision made by the Supreme Court, was not immune to the interpretive whims of the individuals who currently inhabit their seats of judgment and power. While the Dobbs decision may be characterized as "flawed" by some, this article seeks to examine the notion that there are no "flawed" or "unflawed" interpretations of the United States Constitution; only ones which we like, or do not like. As such, this decision will have a devastating impact on women's rights and reproductive health for many years to come. This article concludes by discussing the potential future landscape of abortion rights in the United States. Although the Dobbs decision was a setback for abortion rights, this is nowhere near the end of the fight, considering other available levers outside of the judiciary, including and not limited to legislative action, public education, and grassroots organizing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]