Stetson Law Review

I am grateful to the Stetson Law Review for providing me this opportunity to comment on Judge Mark Klingensmith’s recent, thought-provoking article on judicial...

As someone who has regularly taught both contracts and remedies for the past decade and a half, I read with great interest...

For half a century, plaintiffs in federal court facing motions to dismiss dutifully cited the familiar Conley v. Gibson mantra that the motion must...

Restorative justice has become an increasingly popular topic in the national conversation. No longer just a niche legal concept, restorative justice has gained...

Live critique is a process through which a teacher reviews a student’s work for the first time “live” with the student and provides feedback. Stetson Law Review recently published Say What?: A How-To Guide on Providing Formative Assessment to Law Students Through Live Critique by Professor Amanda L. Sholtis, which focuses on the use of live critique to give feedback to students on written law school assignments, such as memorandums of law or exam answers. This response will offer some reflections on Professor Sholtis’ article and also will discuss how providing feedback to students immediately after they present oral arguments is another useful example of the live-critique method in legal education.

As a law student, the Stetson Law Review published my first law review article. As a licensed attorney reviewing that article, I have some responses to the topic of my Comment, Title VII employment discrimination based on sex, especially since oral arguments were recently heard at the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) with three separate but overlapping cases. First, this Response discusses the legal arguments made by the LGB plaintiffs in the cases against the legal arguments I presented in my previous article. Then, the Response reviews the oral argument heard at SCOTUS for the LGB plaintiffs and provides responses to some points made by the Justices. Finally, this Response examines the future, by discussing not only the possible outcomes from the SCOTUS case but also how that decision can impact already viable legal theories LGB plaintiffs use in employment discrimination cases.