Liz Magill likes to run. Not too fast, but steady. It’s a good thing, too. Getting up to speed in her new job as the Richard E. Lang Professor of Law and Dean of Stanford Law School, with back-to-back appointments every day and events on most evenings, will take marathon stamina.
| Issue
86
The Stanford Challenge
This article accompanies the cover story “The New JD.” The fall 2006 Stanford Lawyer cover story had what many might have called an audacious title: “Transforming Legal Education.” If the title of that magazine story was audacious, the plan it described was perhaps more so. How do you transform an [...]
| Issue
85
Your Privacy At Risk
Phone-hacking scandals at News of The World. One lawsuit after another alleging privacy breaches by major companies. A backlash over body-scanning machines in airport security lines. It’s been a busy year for those who work at the intersection of privacy law and technology. “2011 is the year that changed privacy,” [...]
| Issue
83
The Wrongful Convictions Seminar
Most Americans likely believe that the combined weight of “beyond a shadow of a doubt” and DNA testing would prevent innocent people from being sent to jail. But don’t be too sure. That’s the lesson students taking Lawrence C. Marshall’s Wrongful Convictions seminar have learned. Yes, it’s true, Virginia, innocent [...]
| Issue
83
Saving the Criminal Justice System
When the wheels came off the U.S. economy in late 2007, it was no wonder law enforcement leaders feared that a spike in crime would be close behind. Unemployment and home foreclosures shot up, while tax revenues to support education, substance abuse and mental health services, job training, recreation programs, [...]
| Issue
82
The Empiricists
President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s proposed court-packing plan of 1937 sparked decades of debate about judicial susceptibility to outside influences. After the Supreme Court struck down crucial parts of the New Deal, the president unveiled a plan to expand the size of the bench to as many as 15 justices to gain control of the Court. Yet soon after, Justice Owen J. Roberts, a center “swing” voter, aligned his vote with liberal colleagues in a pivotal case—the so-called “switch in time that saved nine.”