• An otherwise excellent Sunday Boston Globe editorial page essay on re-thinking judicial review, A Really Restrained Judiciary: Attacking Judicial Activism Isn’t Just for Conservatives Anymore, which quotes con law luminaries such as Bruce Ackerman (Yale), Akhil Amar (Yale), Robert Bork (Richmond), Michael Klarman (Virginia), Larry Kramer (Stanford), Cass Sunstein (Chicago), Mark Tushnet (Georgetown), and Jeremy Waldron (Columbia), concludes as follows:

“With judicial review,” says Waldron, “there’s a whole bunch of people whose views get locked out as unconstitutional. But in this country people fought long and hard for the vote because they wanted to participate on equal terms in important matters of principle, not just tax laws.”

• An article in the National Jurist, The Courses You Love — and Love to Hate:

There are certain course titles, the mere mention of which will make most law students groan and appear to shrivel in their clothes — kind of like showing a bucket of water to the Wicked Witch of the West.

Try it with your best friends! Whisper “Civ Pro,” “commercial transactions” or “federal income tax” in their ears and watch them cry. Admittedly not everyone hates those courses, but they are the ones most people love to hate.