The United States currently ranks last among high-income countries for life expectancy. Since 2014, U.S. life expectancy has declined. By now, these alarming trends are well known to researchers, the public, and policymakers. Nevertheless, there is no consensus among researchers on the causes of the trends, and there has been no serious and effective bipartisan effort to solve the problem. The dominant narrative has implicated Americans' behaviors, such as smoking, illicit drug use, and suicide; yet, this narrative is misguided and counterproductive. It also exonerates the key structural drivers of behaviors and health, namely the U.S. policy context and the outsized influence of corporations and big donors on those policies. The U.S. policy context has changed dramatically since the 1970s, particularly at the state level. State policies have hyperpolarized along partisan lines. These changes have likely had a profound impact on nearly every aspect of Americans' lives, cutting short many of them. Consequently, this Essay argues that state policies increasingly affect life and death in the United States. It raises concerns about how the polarization of state policies will further deteriorate the health of many Americans. It points to three significant forces behind the polarization and the growing importance of state policy contexts on Americans' lives-(1) New Federalism; (2) the new type of state preemption laws; and (3) the emergence of organizations, such as the American Legislative Exchange Council, through which corporations and big donors influence policies.
{"title":"POLICY POLARIZATION AND DEATH IN THE UNITED STATES.","authors":"Jennifer Karas Montez","doi":"","DOIUrl":"","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The United States currently ranks last among high-income countries for life expectancy. Since 2014, U.S. life expectancy has declined. By now, these alarming trends are well known to researchers, the public, and policymakers. Nevertheless, there is no consensus among researchers on the causes of the trends, and there has been no serious and effective bipartisan effort to solve the problem. The dominant narrative has implicated Americans' behaviors, such as smoking, illicit drug use, and suicide; yet, this narrative is misguided and counterproductive. It also exonerates the key structural drivers of behaviors and health, namely the U.S. policy context and the outsized influence of corporations and big donors on those policies. The U.S. policy context has changed dramatically since the 1970s, particularly at the state level. State policies have hyperpolarized along partisan lines. These changes have likely had a profound impact on nearly every aspect of Americans' lives, cutting short many of them. Consequently, this Essay argues that state policies increasingly affect life and death in the United States. It raises concerns about how the polarization of state policies will further deteriorate the health of many Americans. It points to three significant forces behind the polarization and the growing importance of state policy contexts on Americans' lives-(1) New Federalism; (2) the new type of state preemption laws; and (3) the emergence of organizations, such as the American Legislative Exchange Council, through which corporations and big donors influence policies.</p>","PeriodicalId":53568,"journal":{"name":"Temple Law Review","volume":"92 4","pages":"889-916"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8442849/pdf/nihms-1585519.pdf","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"39443925","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This Essay, prepared for the symposium honoring the work of Professor Bill Whitford, makes the claim that empirical legal scholars have strengths as compared to scholars from other disciplines who also do socio-legal scholarship. Most significantly, empirical legal scholars have an in-depth knowledge of fine-grained institutional detail that can unlock knowledge that otherwise might remain hidden – Whitford’s work provides several examples. Empirical legal scholars also will tend to write about the legal system as such, helping us understand how the legal system works. Empirical legal scholars identify topics others might miss and often write scholarship that connects with policy makers. The claim here is not that empirical legal scholars are somehow “better” – indeed empirical legal scholars also have weaknesses. Rather, the claim is only that empirical legal scholars produce scholarship that is different, scholarship that expands our knowledge of how the world works, and hence scholarship that is useful.
{"title":"What Empirical Legal Scholars Do Best","authors":"Robert M. Lawless","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2584177","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2584177","url":null,"abstract":"This Essay, prepared for the symposium honoring the work of Professor Bill Whitford, makes the claim that empirical legal scholars have strengths as compared to scholars from other disciplines who also do socio-legal scholarship. Most significantly, empirical legal scholars have an in-depth knowledge of fine-grained institutional detail that can unlock knowledge that otherwise might remain hidden – Whitford’s work provides several examples. Empirical legal scholars also will tend to write about the legal system as such, helping us understand how the legal system works. Empirical legal scholars identify topics others might miss and often write scholarship that connects with policy makers. The claim here is not that empirical legal scholars are somehow “better” – indeed empirical legal scholars also have weaknesses. Rather, the claim is only that empirical legal scholars produce scholarship that is different, scholarship that expands our knowledge of how the world works, and hence scholarship that is useful.","PeriodicalId":53568,"journal":{"name":"Temple Law Review","volume":"87 1","pages":"711-724"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2015-03-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2139/SSRN.2584177","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"68213056","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The Supreme Court’s 2010 ruling in Citizens United v. FEC re-energized the debate over the proper role of corporations in the political process. Some have welcomed the decision as an application of the Constitution’s limits upon governmental regulation of political speech. Others have bemoaned the decision for equating corporate spending with free speech, thereby depriving government of the power to effectively safeguard the electoral process. Both sides of the debate, however, appear fixated upon a “one-size-fits-all” answer to the question of corporate political involvement. This is both unfortunate and inaccurate, for it undermines the construction of a positive path forward and obfuscates the truth of things. Corporations are marked by a tremendous degree of variation and diversity, and our approach to corporate involvement in the political process ought to take this important fact into account. Many corporations live up to their characterization as simply profit-maximizing machines. To equate their “speech” with the speech of a human being would seem odd and problematic. But some corporations belie such characterization. Some are genuine communities – a coming together of investors, business people, employees and customers around a particular vision of the good. They are marked by specific cultures, and adhere to certain principles. Such corporations provide people with not merely goods, services, and jobs, but the harmony that accompanies a life lived consistently – a life where employment and purchasing decisions are not separate from the value judgments that are constitutive of human character. These corporations should be recognized as “Tocquevillian Associations.” And their participation in the political process ought to be vigorously welcomed. Indeed, their participation in the political process is arguably essential to the health of our democratic republic.
{"title":"The Corporation as a Tocquevillian Association","authors":"Ronald J. Colombo","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2009885","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2009885","url":null,"abstract":"The Supreme Court’s 2010 ruling in Citizens United v. FEC re-energized the debate over the proper role of corporations in the political process. Some have welcomed the decision as an application of the Constitution’s limits upon governmental regulation of political speech. Others have bemoaned the decision for equating corporate spending with free speech, thereby depriving government of the power to effectively safeguard the electoral process. Both sides of the debate, however, appear fixated upon a “one-size-fits-all” answer to the question of corporate political involvement. This is both unfortunate and inaccurate, for it undermines the construction of a positive path forward and obfuscates the truth of things. Corporations are marked by a tremendous degree of variation and diversity, and our approach to corporate involvement in the political process ought to take this important fact into account. Many corporations live up to their characterization as simply profit-maximizing machines. To equate their “speech” with the speech of a human being would seem odd and problematic. But some corporations belie such characterization. Some are genuine communities – a coming together of investors, business people, employees and customers around a particular vision of the good. They are marked by specific cultures, and adhere to certain principles. Such corporations provide people with not merely goods, services, and jobs, but the harmony that accompanies a life lived consistently – a life where employment and purchasing decisions are not separate from the value judgments that are constitutive of human character. These corporations should be recognized as “Tocquevillian Associations.” And their participation in the political process ought to be vigorously welcomed. Indeed, their participation in the political process is arguably essential to the health of our democratic republic.","PeriodicalId":53568,"journal":{"name":"Temple Law Review","volume":"85 1","pages":"1"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2012-02-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2139/SSRN.2009885","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"67848724","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Three women now sit on the United States Supreme Court, a fourth recently retired, suggesting the attainment of formal equality. Despite this appearance of progress, women remain significantly under-represented in major leadership roles within the legal profession, where they face extensive gender bias and stereotyping. This gender bias and stereotyping is also leveraged against women who are featured in the media, illustrated most vividly by coverage of the most recent Supreme Court nominations. Headlines from mainstream news, “Then Comes the Marriage Question” in the New York Times or “The Supreme Court Needs More Mothers” in the Washington Post, and from the online blog arena, “Elena Kagan v. Sonia Sotomayor: Who Wore it Better?” in AbovetheLaw.com or “Put a Mom on the Court” in TheDailyBeast.com, are just a sampling of those that emerged during the nomination period for Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor, two highly accomplished, well-qualified nominees. The gendered nature of these and other articles led us to conduct an empirical study using quantitative and qualitative content analysis to examine media coverage for every Supreme Court nominee since Justices Powell and Rehnquist, a starting-point selected in light of the feminist movement’s influence at the time. Our project sits at the unique interdisciplinary intersection of law, gender studies, mass media, and political science. This article presents results from the first phase of data analysis looking at the week following a president’s announcement of a nominee, and we report five preliminary findings. In identifying these findings, we assess the gendered portrayals of nominees to the Court, and we reflect upon how this knowledge might motivate the resolution of gender disparity in the legal profession’s pipeline to power.
{"title":"Rethinking Gender Equality in the Legal Profession's Pipeline to Power: A Study on Media Coverage of Supreme Court Nominees (Phase I, the Introduction Week)","authors":"Hannah J. Brenner, Renee Newman Knake","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.1874719","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1874719","url":null,"abstract":"Three women now sit on the United States Supreme Court, a fourth recently retired, suggesting the attainment of formal equality. Despite this appearance of progress, women remain significantly under-represented in major leadership roles within the legal profession, where they face extensive gender bias and stereotyping. This gender bias and stereotyping is also leveraged against women who are featured in the media, illustrated most vividly by coverage of the most recent Supreme Court nominations. Headlines from mainstream news, “Then Comes the Marriage Question” in the New York Times or “The Supreme Court Needs More Mothers” in the Washington Post, and from the online blog arena, “Elena Kagan v. Sonia Sotomayor: Who Wore it Better?” in AbovetheLaw.com or “Put a Mom on the Court” in TheDailyBeast.com, are just a sampling of those that emerged during the nomination period for Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor, two highly accomplished, well-qualified nominees. The gendered nature of these and other articles led us to conduct an empirical study using quantitative and qualitative content analysis to examine media coverage for every Supreme Court nominee since Justices Powell and Rehnquist, a starting-point selected in light of the feminist movement’s influence at the time. Our project sits at the unique interdisciplinary intersection of law, gender studies, mass media, and political science. This article presents results from the first phase of data analysis looking at the week following a president’s announcement of a nominee, and we report five preliminary findings. In identifying these findings, we assess the gendered portrayals of nominees to the Court, and we reflect upon how this knowledge might motivate the resolution of gender disparity in the legal profession’s pipeline to power.","PeriodicalId":53568,"journal":{"name":"Temple Law Review","volume":"84 1","pages":"325"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2010-11-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"67768071","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Hippocrates to HIPAA: a foundation for a federal physician-patient privilege.","authors":"Ralph Ruebner, Leslie Ann Reis","doi":"","DOIUrl":"","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":53568,"journal":{"name":"Temple Law Review","volume":"77 3","pages":"505-75"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2004-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"26332087","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"An employer's exclusion of coverage for contraceptive drugs is not per se sex discrimination.","authors":"Ernest F Lidge","doi":"","DOIUrl":"","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":53568,"journal":{"name":"Temple Law Review","volume":"76 3","pages":"533-77"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2003-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"25886172","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Navigating the slippery slope of frozen embryo disputes: the case for a contractual approach.","authors":"Noel A Fleming","doi":"","DOIUrl":"","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":53568,"journal":{"name":"Temple Law Review","volume":"75 2","pages":"345-74"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2002-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"24530561","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Using bioethics discourse to determine when parents should make health care decisions for their children: is deference justified?","authors":"J L Rosato","doi":"","DOIUrl":"","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":53568,"journal":{"name":"Temple Law Review","volume":"73 1","pages":"1-68"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2000-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"22126461","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Whatever happened to the right to treatment?: the modern quest for a historical promise.","authors":"P Holland, W J Mlyniec","doi":"","DOIUrl":"","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":53568,"journal":{"name":"Temple Law Review","volume":"68 4","pages":"1791-835"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1995-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"25894486","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"The validity of legislative restrictions on abortion under the Oregon constitution.","authors":"D E Tweedt","doi":"","DOIUrl":"","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":53568,"journal":{"name":"Temple Law Review","volume":"65 4","pages":"1349-71"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1992-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"25215517","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","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