Pub Date : 2022-12-06eCollection Date: 2022-12-01DOI: 10.1093/psyrad/kkac022
Kun Qin, John A Sweeney, Melissa P DelBello
Bipolar disorder (BD) is a familial disorder with high heritability. Genetic factors have been linked to the pathogenesis of BD. Relatives of probands with BD who are at familial risk can exhibit brain abnormalities prior to illness onset. Given its involvement in prefrontal cognitive control and in frontolimbic circuitry that regulates emotional reactivity, the inferior frontal gyrus (IFG) has been a focus of research in studies of BD-related pathology and BD-risk mechanism. In this review, we discuss multimodal neuroimaging findings of the IFG based on studies comparing at-risk relatives and low-risk controls. Review of these studies in at-risk cases suggests the presence of both risk and resilience markers related to the IFG. At-risk individuals exhibited larger gray matter volume and increased functional activities in IFG compared with low-risk controls, which might result from an adaptive brain compensation to support emotion regulation as an aspect of psychological resilience. Functional connectivity between IFG and downstream limbic or striatal areas was typically decreased in at-risk individuals relative to controls, which could contribute to risk-related problems of cognitive and emotional control. Large-scale and longitudinal investigations on at-risk individuals will further elucidate the role of IFG and other brain regions in relation to familial risk for BD, and together guide identification of at-risk individuals for primary prevention.
{"title":"The inferior frontal gyrus and familial risk for bipolar disorder.","authors":"Kun Qin, John A Sweeney, Melissa P DelBello","doi":"10.1093/psyrad/kkac022","DOIUrl":"10.1093/psyrad/kkac022","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Bipolar disorder (BD) is a familial disorder with high heritability. Genetic factors have been linked to the pathogenesis of BD. Relatives of probands with BD who are at familial risk can exhibit brain abnormalities prior to illness onset. Given its involvement in prefrontal cognitive control and in frontolimbic circuitry that regulates emotional reactivity, the inferior frontal gyrus (IFG) has been a focus of research in studies of BD-related pathology and BD-risk mechanism. In this review, we discuss multimodal neuroimaging findings of the IFG based on studies comparing at-risk relatives and low-risk controls. Review of these studies in at-risk cases suggests the presence of both risk and resilience markers related to the IFG. At-risk individuals exhibited larger gray matter volume and increased functional activities in IFG compared with low-risk controls, which might result from an adaptive brain compensation to support emotion regulation as an aspect of psychological resilience. Functional connectivity between IFG and downstream limbic or striatal areas was typically decreased in at-risk individuals relative to controls, which could contribute to risk-related problems of cognitive and emotional control. Large-scale and longitudinal investigations on at-risk individuals will further elucidate the role of IFG and other brain regions in relation to familial risk for BD, and together guide identification of at-risk individuals for primary prevention.</p>","PeriodicalId":51452,"journal":{"name":"California Law Review","volume":"39 1","pages":"171-179"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-12-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10917220/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"90301599","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
From its beginning, America has had a paradoxical democracy, where "all men are created equal" while simultaneously denying the right to vote to anyone who was not White, male, or owned property. The pandemic exposed the fault lines of our democratic form of government. Those imposing barriers to the ballot are facing off against the advocates of access. It is not a new battle. In America, we seek ways to limit who can participate instead of expanding opportunities. We have dedicated our resources to dancing around the edges of democracy-by advocating for vote by mail or automatic voter registration, for example-while allowing states to develop blockades to the ballot that are confusing and quite effective. Without a doubt, America is at a crossroads. The shenanigans that this country has used to prevent access to the ballot box, such as the poll tax, grandfather clause, restrictive voter ID laws, voter purges, and felon disenfranchisement, are antidemocratic and harmful to our system. COVID-19 exposed the fault lines. We must repair them. A free, fair, inclusive, nondiscriminatory right to vote is essential to a healthy democracy. We are in the position to craft a true democratic system of government. Will this country live up to its democratic destiny or continue to deny our journey to a more perfect union?
{"title":"Democracy's Destiny","authors":"G. Daniels","doi":"10.15779/z38bg2hb3q","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15779/z38bg2hb3q","url":null,"abstract":"From its beginning, America has had a paradoxical democracy, where \"all men are created equal\" while simultaneously denying the right to vote to anyone who was not White, male, or owned property. The pandemic exposed the fault lines of our democratic form of government. Those imposing barriers to the ballot are facing off against the advocates of access. It is not a new battle. In America, we seek ways to limit who can participate instead of expanding opportunities. We have dedicated our resources to dancing around the edges of democracy-by advocating for vote by mail or automatic voter registration, for example-while allowing states to develop blockades to the ballot that are confusing and quite effective. Without a doubt, America is at a crossroads. The shenanigans that this country has used to prevent access to the ballot box, such as the poll tax, grandfather clause, restrictive voter ID laws, voter purges, and felon disenfranchisement, are antidemocratic and harmful to our system. COVID-19 exposed the fault lines. We must repair them. A free, fair, inclusive, nondiscriminatory right to vote is essential to a healthy democracy. We are in the position to craft a true democratic system of government. Will this country live up to its democratic destiny or continue to deny our journey to a more perfect union?","PeriodicalId":51452,"journal":{"name":"California Law Review","volume":"109 1","pages":"1067-1105"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"67442373","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Law enforcement has an opacity problem. Police use sophisticated technologies to monitor individuals, surveil communities, and predict behaviors in increasingly intrusive ways. But legal institutions have struggled to understand—let alone set limits on—new investigative methods and techniques, for two major reasons. New technologies of surveillance, often procured from or otherwise reliant on the private sector, tend to operate in opaque and unaccountable ways, augmenting police power while remaining free of meaningful oversight. At the same time, shifts in Fourth Amendment doctrine have expanded law enforcement’s ability to engage in surveillance free of oversight or scrutiny by courts or by the public. The result is that modern policing is not highly visible to oversight institutions, and is becoming even less so.In light of these informational dynamics, transparency litigation has become a core technique for rendering obscure investigative practices visible and holding police accountable. These new lawsuits form a criminal procedure “shadow docket”—they resolve important questions about democratic governance of policing without deciding on the constitutionality of searches and seizures. This Article builds on the government secrecy literature to explore the significance of this “shadow docket” and the relationship between transparency obligations and constitutional limits on police action. In the absence of meaningful Fourth Amendment safeguards, the Article shows, transparency makes policing practices increasingly visible to the public and to democratic institutions in areas in which constitutional criminal procedure today has minimal reach. These efforts to make policing visible bear important lessons for advocates and scholars of criminal procedure, criminal justice reform, and transparency itself.
{"title":"Visible Policing: Technology, Transparency, and Democratic Control","authors":"Hannah Bloch-Wehba","doi":"10.31228/osf.io/4pcf3","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.31228/osf.io/4pcf3","url":null,"abstract":"Law enforcement has an opacity problem. Police use sophisticated technologies to monitor individuals, surveil communities, and predict behaviors in increasingly intrusive ways. But legal institutions have struggled to understand—let alone set limits on—new investigative methods and techniques, for two major reasons. New technologies of surveillance, often procured from or otherwise reliant on the private sector, tend to operate in opaque and unaccountable ways, augmenting police power while remaining free of meaningful oversight. At the same time, shifts in Fourth Amendment doctrine have expanded law enforcement’s ability to engage in surveillance free of oversight or scrutiny by courts or by the public. The result is that modern policing is not highly visible to oversight institutions, and is becoming even less so.In light of these informational dynamics, transparency litigation has become a core technique for rendering obscure investigative practices visible and holding police accountable. These new lawsuits form a criminal procedure “shadow docket”—they resolve important questions about democratic governance of policing without deciding on the constitutionality of searches and seizures. This Article builds on the government secrecy literature to explore the significance of this “shadow docket” and the relationship between transparency obligations and constitutional limits on police action. In the absence of meaningful Fourth Amendment safeguards, the Article shows, transparency makes policing practices increasingly visible to the public and to democratic institutions in areas in which constitutional criminal procedure today has minimal reach. These efforts to make policing visible bear important lessons for advocates and scholars of criminal procedure, criminal justice reform, and transparency itself.","PeriodicalId":51452,"journal":{"name":"California Law Review","volume":"109 1","pages":"917"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4,"publicationDate":"2020-07-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42213618","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court announced for the first time that self-defense, not militia service, is the “core” of the right to keep and bear arms. However, the Court failed to articulate what that means for the right’s implementation. After Heller, most courts deciding Second Amendment questions have mentioned self-defense only superficially or not at all. Some courts, however, have run to the opposite extreme, leaning heavily on the platitude that firearms have utility for lawful self-defense as a rationale for effectively immunizing them from regulation. This Article examines that inconsistency and considers whether self-defense law itself could provide stability and much-needed guidance for when, how, and which weapons receive constitutional protection. This exercise finds support in both Heller and historical precedent, and offers a helpful lens through which to consider the intersection of the Second Amendment and its stated self-defense purpose. At the same time, however, it exposes a tension within Heller, calling into question whether a Second Amendment grounded in self-defense gives more protection to handguns than to less lethal alternatives.
在哥伦比亚特区诉海勒案(District of Columbia v. Heller)中，最高法院首次宣布，持有和携带武器的“核心”权利是自卫，而不是民兵服役。然而，法院未能阐明这对权利的实施意味着什么。在海勒之后，大多数法院在裁决第二修正案问题时只是肤浅地或根本没有提到自卫。然而，一些法院走向了相反的极端，严重依赖于枪支在合法自卫方面的效用这一陈词滥调，作为有效地使其免受监管的理由。本文考察了这种不一致，并考虑了自卫法本身是否可以为何时、如何以及哪些武器受到宪法保护提供稳定和急需的指导。这种做法得到了海勒和历史先例的支持，并提供了一个有益的视角，通过它来考虑第二修正案及其声明的自卫目的的交集。然而，与此同时，它暴露了海勒内部的紧张关系，引发了一个问题，即基于自卫的第二修正案是否给手枪提供了比不那么致命的替代品更多的保护。
{"title":"An Unstable Core: Self-Defense and the Second Amendment","authors":"Eric M. Ruben","doi":"10.15779/Z384T6F38D","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15779/Z384T6F38D","url":null,"abstract":"In District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court announced for the first time that self-defense, not militia service, is the “core” of the right to keep and bear arms. However, the Court failed to articulate what that means for the right’s implementation. After Heller, most courts deciding Second Amendment questions have mentioned self-defense only superficially or not at all. Some courts, however, have run to the opposite extreme, leaning heavily on the platitude that firearms have utility for lawful self-defense as a rationale for effectively immunizing them from regulation. This Article examines that inconsistency and considers whether self-defense law itself could provide stability and much-needed guidance for when, how, and which weapons receive constitutional protection. This exercise finds support in both Heller and historical precedent, and offers a helpful lens through which to consider the intersection of the Second Amendment and its stated self-defense purpose. At the same time, however, it exposes a tension within Heller, calling into question whether a Second Amendment grounded in self-defense gives more protection to handguns than to less lethal alternatives.","PeriodicalId":51452,"journal":{"name":"California Law Review","volume":"108 1","pages":"63"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4,"publicationDate":"2020-03-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44113980","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This Article explores the application of the terrorism bar in immigration law to noncitizens who have participated in an independence movement. It proposes a uniform standard that immigration adjudicators can use to determine whether a foreign entity is a state in order to promote accurate applications of the terrorism bar. The terrorism bar in the Immigration and Nationality Act is broad — it can bar most forms of immigration relief, including asylum, and reaches far beyond ordinary definitions of terrorism. For example, the terrorism bar can block immigration relief for noncitizens who nonviolently supported a militia fighting for independence against a repressive state or who received military-type training from such an organization. The terrorism bar applies even if that militia is supported by the United States. The bar can also ensnare a noncitizen’s spouse and children who have not themselves participated in those activities. Especially in light of its far reach and harsh consequences, it is of the utmost importance to accurately apply the bar, which can be challenging for cases on the margins. One such area is the application of the bar to noncitizens who have supported independence movements leading to the creation of new states, which are situations that often produce large numbers of asylum seekers and refugees. The complexity arises because the terrorism bar requires unlawful conduct, but participation in and support of a state’s armed forces are not unlawful. During an independence movement, a new state can emerge, and support of its armed forces is not unlawful even though hostilities may continue with the state from which it seceded. Adjudicators need to be able to determine when an entity achieved statehood because it could mean the difference between a noncitizen participating in unlawful rebellion, which could trigger the terrorism bar, and supporting the armed forces of a state, which would not. However, there is currently no uniform framework for analyzing questions of statehood in the context of the terrorism bar. Drawing from international law and domestic law, this Article proposes a standard that immigration adjudicators can use to assess questions of statehood to avoid the creation of “paper terrorists” — noncitizens who have participated in independence movements and are mistakenly labeled as terrorists under the Immigration and Nationality Act. This proposal stems from, and is consistent with, the statutory language of the Immigration and Nationality Act, and therefore does not require any legislative action. The proposed standard encourages immigration adjudicators to give full effect to the statutory language to promote more accurate applications of the terrorism bar.
{"title":"Paper Terrorists: Independence Movements and the Terrorism Bar","authors":"Pooja R. Dadhania","doi":"10.15779/Z38MC8RH1B","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15779/Z38MC8RH1B","url":null,"abstract":"This Article explores the application of the terrorism bar in immigration law to noncitizens who have participated in an independence movement. It proposes a uniform standard that immigration adjudicators can use to determine whether a foreign entity is a state in order to promote accurate applications of the terrorism bar. The terrorism bar in the Immigration and Nationality Act is broad — it can bar most forms of immigration relief, including asylum, and reaches far beyond ordinary definitions of terrorism. For example, the terrorism bar can block immigration relief for noncitizens who nonviolently supported a militia fighting for independence against a repressive state or who received military-type training from such an organization. The terrorism bar applies even if that militia is supported by the United States. The bar can also ensnare a noncitizen’s spouse and children who have not themselves participated in those activities. Especially in light of its far reach and harsh consequences, it is of the utmost importance to accurately apply the bar, which can be challenging for cases on the margins. One such area is the application of the bar to noncitizens who have supported independence movements leading to the creation of new states, which are situations that often produce large numbers of asylum seekers and refugees. The complexity arises because the terrorism bar requires unlawful conduct, but participation in and support of a state’s armed forces are not unlawful. During an independence movement, a new state can emerge, and support of its armed forces is not unlawful even though hostilities may continue with the state from which it seceded. Adjudicators need to be able to determine when an entity achieved statehood because it could mean the difference between a noncitizen participating in unlawful rebellion, which could trigger the terrorism bar, and supporting the armed forces of a state, which would not. However, there is currently no uniform framework for analyzing questions of statehood in the context of the terrorism bar. Drawing from international law and domestic law, this Article proposes a standard that immigration adjudicators can use to assess questions of statehood to avoid the creation of “paper terrorists” — noncitizens who have participated in independence movements and are mistakenly labeled as terrorists under the Immigration and Nationality Act. This proposal stems from, and is consistent with, the statutory language of the Immigration and Nationality Act, and therefore does not require any legislative action. The proposed standard encourages immigration adjudicators to give full effect to the statutory language to promote more accurate applications of the terrorism bar.","PeriodicalId":51452,"journal":{"name":"California Law Review","volume":"205 1","pages":"1733"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4,"publicationDate":"2020-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"67504626","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-12-02DOI: 10.1186/s12958-019-0548-x
Deion M Burks, Margaret R McCoy, Sudipta Dutta, Connie J Mark-Kappeler, Patricia B Hoyer, Melissa E Pepling
Background: Infertility is linked to depletion of the primordial follicle pool consisting of individual oocytes arrested at the diplotene stage of meiotic prophase I surrounded by granulosa cells. Primordial germ cells, the oocyte precursors, begin to differentiate during embryonic development. These cells migrate to the genital ridge and begin mitotic divisions, remaining connected, through incomplete cytokinesis, in clusters of synchronously dividing oogonia known as germ cell cysts. Subsequently, they enter meiosis, become oocytes and progress through prophase I to the diplotene stage. The cysts break apart, allowing individual oocytes to be surrounded by a layer of granulosa cells, forming primordial follicles each containing a diplotene arrested oocyte. A large number of oocytes are lost coincident with cyst breakdown, and may be important for quality control of primordial follicle formation. Exposure of developing ovaries to exogenous hormones can disrupt cyst breakdown and follicle formation, but it is unclear if hormones affect progression of oocytes through prophase I of meiosis.
Methods: Fetal ovaries were treated in organ culture with estradiol, progesterone, or both hormones, labeled for MSY2 or Synaptonemal complex protein 3 (SYCP3) using whole mount immunocytochemistry and examined by confocal microscopy. Meiotic prophase I progression was also followed using the meiotic surface spread technique.
Results: MSY2 expression in oocytes was reduced by progesterone but not estradiol or the hormone combination. However, while MSY2 expression was upregulated during development it was not a precise marker for the diplotene stage. We also followed meiotic prophase I progression using antibodies against SYCP3 using two different methods, and found that the percent of oocytes at the pachytene stage peaked at postnatal day 1. Finally, estradiol and progesterone treatment together but not either alone in organ culture increased the percent of oocytes at the pachytene stage.
Conclusions: We set out to examine the effects of hormones on prophase I progression and found that while MSY2 expression was reduced by progesterone, MSY2 was not a precise diplotene stage marker. Using antibodies against SYCP3 to identify pachytene stage oocytes we found that progesterone and estradiol together delayed progression of oocytes through prophase I.
背景：不孕症与原始卵泡池的耗竭有关，原始卵泡池由单个卵母细胞组成，这些卵母细胞被颗粒细胞包围，停滞在减数分裂第一阶段的二分裂期。原始生殖细胞是卵母细胞的前体，在胚胎发育过程中开始分化。这些细胞迁移到生殖脊，开始有丝分裂，通过不完全的细胞分裂，保持连接，形成同步分裂的卵原细胞簇，称为生殖细胞囊肿。随后，它们进入减数分裂，成为卵母细胞，并通过前期 I 进入二分裂阶段。囊肿破裂后，单个卵母细胞被一层颗粒细胞包围，形成原始卵泡，每个卵泡都含有一个停滞在二分裂期的卵母细胞。大量卵母细胞在囊肿破裂时丢失，这可能是原始卵泡形成质量控制的重要因素。将发育中的卵巢暴露于外源性激素可破坏囊肿破裂和卵泡形成，但激素是否会影响卵母细胞减数分裂前期 I 的进展尚不清楚：方法：用雌二醇、黄体酮或两种激素处理器官培养中的胎儿卵巢，用整装免疫细胞化学法标记MSY2或突触素复合蛋白3（SYCP3），并用共聚焦显微镜观察。此外，还使用减数分裂表面扩增技术跟踪减数分裂前期 I 的进展：结果：黄体酮会降低卵母细胞中 MSY2 的表达，但雌二醇或激素组合不会。然而，虽然 MSY2 的表达在发育过程中上调，但它并不是二分裂期的精确标记。我们还使用了两种不同的方法，使用针对SYCP3的抗体来跟踪减数分裂前期I的进展，结果发现处于青春期的卵母细胞百分比在出生后第1天达到峰值。最后，在器官培养中，雌二醇和黄体酮同时处理（而不是单独处理）会增加处于青春期的卵母细胞百分比：我们研究了激素对I期进展的影响，发现虽然黄体酮会降低MSY2的表达，但MSY2并不是一个精确的二分裂期标志物。我们发现，黄体酮和雌二醇共同延迟了卵母细胞I期的进展。
{"title":"Molecular analysis of the effects of steroid hormones on mouse meiotic prophase I progression.","authors":"Deion M Burks, Margaret R McCoy, Sudipta Dutta, Connie J Mark-Kappeler, Patricia B Hoyer, Melissa E Pepling","doi":"10.1186/s12958-019-0548-x","DOIUrl":"10.1186/s12958-019-0548-x","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Infertility is linked to depletion of the primordial follicle pool consisting of individual oocytes arrested at the diplotene stage of meiotic prophase I surrounded by granulosa cells. Primordial germ cells, the oocyte precursors, begin to differentiate during embryonic development. These cells migrate to the genital ridge and begin mitotic divisions, remaining connected, through incomplete cytokinesis, in clusters of synchronously dividing oogonia known as germ cell cysts. Subsequently, they enter meiosis, become oocytes and progress through prophase I to the diplotene stage. The cysts break apart, allowing individual oocytes to be surrounded by a layer of granulosa cells, forming primordial follicles each containing a diplotene arrested oocyte. A large number of oocytes are lost coincident with cyst breakdown, and may be important for quality control of primordial follicle formation. Exposure of developing ovaries to exogenous hormones can disrupt cyst breakdown and follicle formation, but it is unclear if hormones affect progression of oocytes through prophase I of meiosis.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Fetal ovaries were treated in organ culture with estradiol, progesterone, or both hormones, labeled for MSY2 or Synaptonemal complex protein 3 (SYCP3) using whole mount immunocytochemistry and examined by confocal microscopy. Meiotic prophase I progression was also followed using the meiotic surface spread technique.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>MSY2 expression in oocytes was reduced by progesterone but not estradiol or the hormone combination. However, while MSY2 expression was upregulated during development it was not a precise marker for the diplotene stage. We also followed meiotic prophase I progression using antibodies against SYCP3 using two different methods, and found that the percent of oocytes at the pachytene stage peaked at postnatal day 1. Finally, estradiol and progesterone treatment together but not either alone in organ culture increased the percent of oocytes at the pachytene stage.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>We set out to examine the effects of hormones on prophase I progression and found that while MSY2 expression was reduced by progesterone, MSY2 was not a precise diplotene stage marker. Using antibodies against SYCP3 to identify pachytene stage oocytes we found that progesterone and estradiol together delayed progression of oocytes through prophase I.</p>","PeriodicalId":51452,"journal":{"name":"California Law Review","volume":"60 1","pages":"105"},"PeriodicalIF":4.4,"publicationDate":"2019-12-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6886186/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"89535662","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The possibility of a subprime auto finance bubble gives financial regulators an opportunity to navigate a burgeoning crisis in real time. Lessons learned from the 2008 financial crisis and the implementation of the Dodd-Frank Act prompt the question whether financial regulators should adopt an ability-to-repay rule for auto lending similar to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s Mortgage Ability-to-Repay Rule. In determining whether to adopt a rule, financial regulators should consider how, if at all, enforcement and adjudication could help stabilize the increasingly risky auto finance market. For both enforcement and rulemaking, the role of private attorneys general could prove critical to deterring abusive lending and cooling off a dangerously permissive market.
{"title":"Pump the Brakes: What Financial Regulators Should Consider in Trying to Prevent a Subprime Auto Loan Bubble","authors":"Andrew P. Schmidt","doi":"10.15779/Z389P2W65P","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15779/Z389P2W65P","url":null,"abstract":"The possibility of a subprime auto finance bubble gives financial regulators an opportunity to navigate a burgeoning crisis in real time. Lessons learned from the 2008 financial crisis and the implementation of the Dodd-Frank Act prompt the question whether financial regulators should adopt an ability-to-repay rule for auto lending similar to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s Mortgage Ability-to-Repay Rule. In determining whether to adopt a rule, financial regulators should consider how, if at all, enforcement and adjudication could help stabilize the increasingly risky auto finance market. For both enforcement and rulemaking, the role of private attorneys general could prove critical to deterring abusive lending and cooling off a dangerously permissive market.","PeriodicalId":51452,"journal":{"name":"California Law Review","volume":"107 1","pages":"1345"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4,"publicationDate":"2019-10-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42919768","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Low-wage workers experience wage theft — that is, employers’ failure to pay earned wages — at alarmingly high rates. Indeed, the number of wage and hour cases filed in federal and state courts and administrative agencies steadily increases every year. While much of the scholarly assessment of wage and hour litigation focuses on large collective and class actions involving hundreds or thousands of workers and millions of dollars in lost wages, the experiences of individual workers with small claims have received little attention. Furthermore, scholarly consideration of the justice gap in lower courts, more generally, has often focused on debt collection cases in which the individual denied justice is the defendant, not the plaintiff. This article fills a significant gap in the literature by considering the experiences of individual low-wage workers who pursue their claims in the lower courts. In doing so, it identifies the difference between the law as written and the law as experienced by low-wage workers seeking to vindicate their substantive legal rights. After considering the challenges to adjudicating wage and hour cases in small claims courts, it argues that procedural informality and frequent absence of critical inquiry into the substantive legal issues create significant hurdles to low-wage workers’ ability to prevail on their claims. Indeed, despite the various protections provided by both federal and state wage and hour laws, courts adjudicating these claims often apply a breach of contract analysis that disadvantages vulnerable workers. This return to what I term a pre-New Deal, Lochnerian approach to wage and hour disputes runs afoul of Congress and state governments’ efforts to regulate the workplace and, particularly, to protect vulnerable low-wage workers. This article argues that the challenge of injecting legal standards into small claims court requires the creative use of narrative and case theory to prevail in wage and hour claims. It also considers potential procedural changes, such as the introduction of specific pleadings and forms for wage and hour claims and state court judge trainings that would better enable pro se parties to assert their federal and state substantive wage and hour rights in small claims courts.
{"title":"Wage Theft in Lawless Courts","authors":"Llezlie L. Green","doi":"10.15779/Z38FF3M08W","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15779/Z38FF3M08W","url":null,"abstract":"Low-wage workers experience wage theft — that is, employers’ failure to pay earned wages — at alarmingly high rates. Indeed, the number of wage and hour cases filed in federal and state courts and administrative agencies steadily increases every year. While much of the scholarly assessment of wage and hour litigation focuses on large collective and class actions involving hundreds or thousands of workers and millions of dollars in lost wages, the experiences of individual workers with small claims have received little attention. Furthermore, scholarly consideration of the justice gap in lower courts, more generally, has often focused on debt collection cases in which the individual denied justice is the defendant, not the plaintiff. \u0000 \u0000This article fills a significant gap in the literature by considering the experiences of individual low-wage workers who pursue their claims in the lower courts. In doing so, it identifies the difference between the law as written and the law as experienced by low-wage workers seeking to vindicate their substantive legal rights. After considering the challenges to adjudicating wage and hour cases in small claims courts, it argues that procedural informality and frequent absence of critical inquiry into the substantive legal issues create significant hurdles to low-wage workers’ ability to prevail on their claims. Indeed, despite the various protections provided by both federal and state wage and hour laws, courts adjudicating these claims often apply a breach of contract analysis that disadvantages vulnerable workers. This return to what I term a pre-New Deal, Lochnerian approach to wage and hour disputes runs afoul of Congress and state governments’ efforts to regulate the workplace and, particularly, to protect vulnerable low-wage workers. \u0000 \u0000This article argues that the challenge of injecting legal standards into small claims court requires the creative use of narrative and case theory to prevail in wage and hour claims. It also considers potential procedural changes, such as the introduction of specific pleadings and forms for wage and hour claims and state court judge trainings that would better enable pro se parties to assert their federal and state substantive wage and hour rights in small claims courts.","PeriodicalId":51452,"journal":{"name":"California Law Review","volume":"107 1","pages":"1303"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4,"publicationDate":"2019-09-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46038827","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
There are millions of Americans who are systematically forgotten and mistreated by our government. They have been described by the Supreme Court as “alien races” and “utterly unfit for American citizenship,” but they continue to fight and die defending our Constitution. They survive catastrophic storms, but do not receive the assistance that is freely given to other Americans. They are subject to federal laws and regulations, but have no meaningful voice or vote in Washington. They are the millions of Americans in Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the US Virgin Islands, and the Northern Mariana Islands — the unincorporated territories of the United States. This Article is about these forgotten Americans, their longstanding political plight, and the pragmatic legal policies that could improve their lives and make them fully and equally American. It begins by providing a brief overview of each territory. Next, it investigates the plight of the territories, focusing on how interconnected factors relating to political powerlessness, economic dependence, military presence, and geographic isolation have created heavy burdens for people in the territories. Moving from problems to solutions, this Article examines past efforts to aid the territories. In particular, it analyzes past pursuits of litigation, statehood, and independence. It explains why these prior paths did not lead to progress, and discloses critical obstacles that continue to obstruct these routes. Finally, this Article proposes three workable ways for the federal government to assist the territories in the near term. Specifically, it argues that the territories and their supporters should focus on working with the federal government to obtain: (1) an extended temporary waiver of the costly maritime law known as the Jones Act, (2) most-favored state status in federal veterans and disaster relief appropriations, and (3) special economic empowerment zone designations. Ultimately, this Article aspires to offer a new, workable roadmap for policymakers to think and act with greater urgency about the forgotten Americans of our territories.
{"title":"Americans, Almost and Forgotten","authors":"Tom C. W. Lin","doi":"10.15779/Z38513TW58","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15779/Z38513TW58","url":null,"abstract":"There are millions of Americans who are systematically forgotten and mistreated by our government. They have been described by the Supreme Court as “alien races” and “utterly unfit for American citizenship,” but they continue to fight and die defending our Constitution. They survive catastrophic storms, but do not receive the assistance that is freely given to other Americans. They are subject to federal laws and regulations, but have no meaningful voice or vote in Washington. They are the millions of Americans in Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the US Virgin Islands, and the Northern Mariana Islands — the unincorporated territories of the United States. \u0000 \u0000This Article is about these forgotten Americans, their longstanding political plight, and the pragmatic legal policies that could improve their lives and make them fully and equally American. It begins by providing a brief overview of each territory. Next, it investigates the plight of the territories, focusing on how interconnected factors relating to political powerlessness, economic dependence, military presence, and geographic isolation have created heavy burdens for people in the territories. Moving from problems to solutions, this Article examines past efforts to aid the territories. In particular, it analyzes past pursuits of litigation, statehood, and independence. It explains why these prior paths did not lead to progress, and discloses critical obstacles that continue to obstruct these routes. Finally, this Article proposes three workable ways for the federal government to assist the territories in the near term. Specifically, it argues that the territories and their supporters should focus on working with the federal government to obtain: (1) an extended temporary waiver of the costly maritime law known as the Jones Act, (2) most-favored state status in federal veterans and disaster relief appropriations, and (3) special economic empowerment zone designations. Ultimately, this Article aspires to offer a new, workable roadmap for policymakers to think and act with greater urgency about the forgotten Americans of our territories.","PeriodicalId":51452,"journal":{"name":"California Law Review","volume":"107 1","pages":"1249"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4,"publicationDate":"2019-09-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45000242","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号