In Print
Filter
Post List
Women in the Courts: An Old Thorn in Men’s Sides
This article was inspired by the work of a series of state task forces on women in the courts. It examines the subject from a historical perspective, comparing ancient Rome, mainly during the period from the first century B.C. to the third A.D., with the United States, from its prerevolutionary beginnings to the present. The article's focus is gender bias against women acting in official court functions.Book Review: From Basic Needs to Basic Rights: Women’s Claim to Human Rights. Edited by Margaret A. Schuler. Washington, D.C.: Women, Law and Development International, 1995. 597 pages.
In the review of this work, Schoenmeyer will adhere to the structure provided by Schuler. In doing so, he will give an overview of the topics addressed in each individual section and then attempt to tie together and further analyze some of the book's main concepts.Damned for Using Daycare: Appellate Brief of Jennifer Ireland in Ireland V. Smith
At issue is custody of three-and-a-half-year-old Maranda (date of birth: April 22, 1991). The trial court found that Maranda had an established custodial environment with her mother, Jennifer Ireland, but then nominally ordered custody changed to Steven Smith. The court's order changing custody was based on a determination that day care is an inappropriate choice for care of a preschool child, and that no one effectively can be a single parent and a student at the same time. Those findings have no factual basis in the record, no legal basis under Michigan law, and no logical or even common sense basis at all. In addition, the trial court in effect gave custody of Maranda not to Smith, but to his parents, who were not even parties to the custody action.Can Families Be Efficient? A Feminist Appraisal
This Article examines the convergence of feminist and law and economics theory on family law questions, particularly issues of marriage and divorce. Both feminist legal theory and law and economics analysis have come to occupy a significant place in the American legal academy, demonstrated by growing numbers of conferences, journals, casebooks and monographs, and electronic mail lists in each area. Not surprisingly, as the two fields have grown, they have begun to touch, to overlap, and occasionally to come into conflict. This process has been evident in the extensive literature on sex discrimination in employment and is increasingly apparent in writing on family law issues.U.S. Ratification of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women
The purpose of this article is to highlight the need for ratification of the Convention by the United States, and to address arguments against ratification. Various concerns have been raised with respect to CEAFDAW, both specific to the United States and more international in scope. Some problems pertain to United States ratification generally, other issues concern potential conflicts between specific articles of the Convention and U.S. law, and broader problems have been raised with respect to international implementation. Most of these issues are not uncommon in international agreements, and may therefore be remedied through conventional mechanisms, including implementing legislation, reservations, clarifying statements, participation in the monitoring body created by the Convention, and active involvement within the United Nations system and other international organizations involved in the creation of international laws and principles.Political Lawyering, One Person at a Time: The Challenge of Legal Work Against Domestic Violence for the Impact Litigation/Client Service Debate
The premise of this Article is that, in his assertion that client service work is political lawyering, Ralph Reed is right. Indeed, Gary Bellow made a similar point about the political content of both impact litigation and client service work in a classic article written almost twenty years ago. Of course, Reed and Bellow are hardly ideological soulmates. Reed disapproves of the political content of service work, while Bellow heartily endorses it. On that point, this Article sides with Bellow. It employs the example of domestic violence lawyering to demonstrate why Bellow and Reed are correct that client service work has political content, and why Bellow is right that such political content is central to providing legal services to poor people. This Article situates the impact litigation/client service debate as one of three dichotomies which privilege detachment over connection in legal practice. The other dichotomies in this trio divide the professional from the personal and the public from the private.A Feminist Theory of Malebashing
The concern about feminist "malebashing" is increasingly common, inside the university and out, but unfortunately, because of the emotions involved, most discussions of malebashing generate more confusion than understanding. When feminists say negative things about men, they often speak in anger and perhaps fear. When men respond, they are often angry, defensive, and perhaps hurt. While this confusion may be understandable, it is still counter-productive. The dialogue is plagued by a failure to answer with precision or rigor the most basic questions about this subject: What is "malebashing," i.e., illegitimate negative statements about men, and how is it different from legitimate negative statements about men? Are feminists in general or feminists of some particular kind necessarily committed to malebashing because of the assumptions of their own positions? This Article will attempt to address these questions, to consider the justifiability of negative statements about men within feminism. It is not, however, about the justifiability of feminism itself. We assume the general themes of feminism: women deserve equal status, rights, and opportunities; political activism may legitimately seek to advance the interests of women; and legal reform is one legitimate path to improve the lot of women. We do not mean to respond to global criticisms of the feminist project as a whole. We assess only the use, or abuse, of a particular rhetorical strategy within that project.Pragmatism and Parity in Appointments
This review uses Carter's two foci as a springboard for analyzing the Article II, Section II appointment process. First, Carter's discussion of indecency in modern appointments may be a valuable theoretical insight into the process instead of a mere sociological observation. "Indecency" in appointments, or what is known as "borking" in Carter parlance, may also be a symptom of race and gender bias in the administration of the Article II, Section II power. To ameliorate the effects of this bias, I suggest the incorporation of pragmatism (a thread of philosophical and legal thought) and parity concepts into the existing appointments theories that have been advanced by scholars such as Carter, Laurence Tribe, and Judge Bork.Second-Parent Adoption: Overcoming Barriers to Lesbian Family Rights
Part I of this Article will discuss some of the legal difficulties associated with co-parenting and why lesbian couples have sought second-parent adoptions. Part II will examine the particular statutory obstacles to second-parent adoptions and then analyze the various ways courts in several states have overcome these obstacles. Finally, Part III will discuss the implications of these decisions in terms of their creation of legal and social norms.Granting Political Asylum to Potential Victims of Female Circumcision
Part I of this article examines two cases. In one case, a United States immigration court allowed female circumcision as a defense to deportation. In another case, the Canadian Immigration and Refugee Board granted political asylum after recognizing female circumcision as a form of persecution. Part II assesses the extent of protections currently provided for potential victims of female circumcision under U.S. asylum law and analyzes the factors that a court should consider when making asylum determinations. Part III recommends that gender should be added to the enumerated grounds for persecution under U.S. asylum law. This section provides a hypothetical that demonstrates how claims of asylum based on female circumcision should be analyzed as gender-based persecution.