17 SUPREME COURT ECONOMIC REVIEW, PP. 1-337, 2009.
Symposium on Post-Kelo Reform. 17 Sup. Ct. Econ. Rev. 1-278 (2009).
Somin, Ilya. Introduction to the symposium. 17 Sup. Ct. Econ. Rev. 1-5 (2009).
Dana, David A. Exclusionary eminent domain. 17 Sup. Ct. Econ. Rev. 7-62 (2009).
Eagle, Steven J. Kelo, directed growth, and municipal industrial policy. 17 Sup. Ct. Econ. Rev. 63-126 (2009).
Ely, James W., Jr. Post-Kelo reform: is the glass half full or half empty? 17 Sup. Ct. Econ. Rev. 127-150 (2009).
Epstein, Richard A. Public use in a post-Kelo world. 17 Sup. Ct. Econ. Rev. 151-171 (2009).
Kelly, Daniel B. Pretextual takings: of private developers, local governments, and impermissible favoritism. 17 Sup. Ct. Econ. Rev. 173-235 (2009).
Morriss, Andrew P. Symbol or substance? An empirical assessment of state responses to Kelo. 17 Sup. Ct. Econ. Rev. 237-278 (2009).
Fon, Vincy and Francesco Parisi. Stability and change in international customary law. 17 Sup. Ct. Econ. Rev. 279-309 (2009).
Wright, Joshua D. Antitrust analysis of category management: Conwood v. United States Tobacco Co. 17 Sup. Ct. Econ. Rev. 311-337 (2009).
Only half an article by a woman in the entire volume, Vincy Fon, along with eight men. 309 pages of d00dliness. Fon & Parisi have a different topic and aren’t in the symposium on post-Kelo reform. Soooo, that’d be 278 pages of symposium d00dliness and zero women.
The symposium topic is “Post Kelo Reform.” I’m sure some women law profs are interested enough in the decision to write about it if asked. Hell, Kelo herself is a woman — and not a passive named plaintiff propped up by the Cato Institute either. The symposium folks could have asked to excerpt part of her book about the case if they had nothing else.