Afterword: the Election, the Regulators, and the Regulated

• Publication year: 2017

Afterword: The Election, the Regulators, and the Regulated

Prasad Hurra

Nicholas Torres

Sai Santosh Kolluru

AFTERWORD

THE ELECTION, THE REGULATORS, AND THE REGULATED

Prasad Hurra^* Nicholas Torres^** Sai Santosh Kolluru^***

Pick up a copy of any law review that you see, and the first article is likely to be, you know, the influence of Immanuel Kant on evidentiary approaches in 18th Century Bulgaria, or something, which I'm sure was of great interest to the academic that wrote it, but isn't of much help to the bar.

—Chief Justice John Roberts Jr.

The Emory Corporate Governance & Accountability Review (ECGAR) is a student-run publication that was founded in 2013 with the overarching goal to bridge the disconnect between the academy and the profession—as often emphasized by Judge Richard Posner of the Seventh Circuit—by focusing not just on the nuts and bolts of corporate law, but on broader relationships between government, corporations and their employees, consumers, neighboring landowners and shareholders.

[Page 336]

Law reviews, no doubt, are vehicles for the voices of the regulators, the advocates for the regulated, and the pundits, who, in the academic world are called scholars. Seldom, if at all, do law reviews directly express the views of the regulated, whose backgrounds may not meet the qualifications for the type of expert thought suitable for the pages of a law review. If the 2016 election taught us anything, it taught us to question the experts, but of course, we suspect this is a part of what it means to "think like a lawyer."

Curiously, among the headlines that expressed the outcome of the 2016 election are numerous ones noting that the experts got it all wrong with their analyses and predictions, and that the voices of the regulated, working Americans were misconstrued, or maybe even ignored. Given the failure of the experts in predicting the 2016 election and after collecting articles and essays from experts and legal luminaries, it seemed incumbent upon the editors for this edition of ECGAR to do what is perhaps unheard of for editors of law reviews: we went out and talked to members of the community—the regulated—to at least get a reality check on our efforts. Our efforts were not scientific but rather the work of gumshoe journalists; we just rolled up our sleeves and went into the community and talked to people.

We asked four questions: 1) What hard issues decided your vote? 2) Why were these issues important to you? 3) What would you...