Insider’s Guide to Understanding Law Review Submissions:

The new academic year has arrived at law schools around the country, and that means it’s fall law review placement season. Professors are sending out articles they wrote over the summer, and student articles editors are selecting articles to publish. I thought I might provide a public service to law review editors out there by offering a behind-the-scenes look at what professors are really thinking when they write law review articles. Here is a model title and abstract; just click on “translate” to see what a typical professor might be thinking and what message he might have wanted to send to the journal when he wrote the preceding text.

Deconstructing the Panopticon:
A Neo-Realist Critique of the Rehnquist Court

(translate)

(Awesome title, isn’t it? Very hip. I’m not quite sure what it means, but it’s got edgy philosophy, Big Brother, and current events all rolled into one. The only thing it’s missing is a pop culture reference, but I have lots of ideas for that. How about “Wardrobe Malfunction: A Neo-Realist Critique of the Rehnquist Court”? Let’s talk.)

This article presents a neo-realist critique of the Rehnquist Court. By combining the architectural insights of Foucault’s Panopticon with recent advances from Jungian psychoanalytic theory, the article exposes the Rehnquist Court as a contingent product of Hegelian substantive ethics.

(translate)

(Do you have any idea how hard it is to come up with an original article topic? Most of the real legal topics have been covered, so I pulled out my college text books from PSYCH 102 and PHILO 203 and started typing. With any luck, none of the articles editors will know enough to call my bluff. Besides, I have been told that this kind of stuff is very hot at the top 10.)

Building upon and extending the insights of Akhil Amar, Lawrence Lessig, and Cass Sunstein, the article applies this framework to recent decisions in controversial areas ranging from affirmative action to the Court’s decision in Lawrence v. Texas.

(translate)
(Message to editors: “Publishing this article is almost as good as publishing a piece by Akhil Amar, Lawrence Lessig, or Cass Sunstein. Plus, I am talking about important issues, and if you publish it lots of people are going to want to cite it. That will make you look good. Even if my paper is basically gibberish, the section on affirmative action and Lawrence will be a lot more fun to edit than that boring article on Korean bankruptcy law you’re thinking of publishing.”)

It also explains how the Supreme Court should decide United States v. Booker and United States v. Fanfan, pending cases that consider how Blakely v. Washington applies to the United States Sentencing Guidelines.

(translate)

(Message to editors: “Is this timely or what? Just think — maybe one of the Justices will read this article in your journal and it will persuade them to change their vote, altering the course of constitutional history! Even more importantly, maybe the Supreme Court will cite it along the way.” Hmm, I just hope no one recognizes that the issue will come out months after Booker and Fanfan have been decided.)

It concludes by offering additional thoughts on the broader connection between Rehnquistian jurisprudence and social darwinism.

(translate)

(My ‘additional thoughts’ are really just a few sentences, but tying ideas into broader themes is an important way to seem profound. Besides, without this sentence the abstract was too short. C’mon, whaddya say? Did I mention that my last piece was published in Yale?)

Of course, any similarity between this and any actual article title and abstract is entirely accidental.