The Roundtable
Welcome to the Roundtable, a forum for incisive commentary and analysis
on cases and developments in law and the legal system.
on cases and developments in law and the legal system.
 Photo Credit: The AtlanticBy Isabela Baghdady Isabela Baghdady is a freshman in the College of Arts and Sciences at the University of Pennsylvania with plans to study Philosophy, Politics, and Economics. With Election Day weeks away Senate Republicans are in danger of losing the majority, prompting questions about the future of the Senate filibuster—a long-honored institutional practice that allows a single Senator to extend debate until 60 members agree to move to a vote [1].
0 Comments
Internal Complaint Committee: Analysing the Legislative Vice on the Touchstone of Co-Working Spaces10/17/2020  Photo Credits: One Future Collective By Hetal Doshi
The author is a law student at the National University of Study and Research in Law (NUSRL), Ranchi. She can be reached at hetaldoshi.hvd@gmail.com. With more than 12,000 spaces around the globe (and more on the way), the $1B co-working industry is here to stay. As per Global Co-working Unconference Conference (“GCUC”), there were a total of around 1.7 million co-working members in 2017 and 2.3 million in 2018, a number which is expected to reach 5 million by 2022 [1]. In a world where ‘Co-working Space’ has become a global trend, the legal implications of this phenomenon on India’s laws such as the Prevention of Sexual Harassment at the Workplace require immediate attention. Ugandan Constitutional Court Upholds Right To Adequate Maternal Healthcare As A Constitutional Right10/12/2020  By Vatsal Patel
Vatsal Patel is a final-year B.A. LL.B. (Hons.) student at the Institute of Law, Nirma University, Gujarat (India) with a keen interest in constitutional and human rights law. In the seminal opinion of CEHURD v. Attorney General, the Constitutional Court of Uganda (“CC”) upheld adequate maternal healthcare, inter-alia, as an independent constitutional right under Article 45 of its constitution [1]. Accordingly, it directed the State to efficiently train all its medical healthcare staff within a period of two-years. The CC’s act received a positive response from human rights activists, who view it as a correction of the court’s previous error when it denied to hear this matter and failed to scrutinise the State’s action from a rights-based perspective [2,3,4].  Photo Credit: Getty Images By Akshita Tiwary Akshita Tiwary is a 3rd year law student at Government Law College, Mumbai, India. She serves as an Assistant Editor for JURIST, University of Pittsburgh, and is keenly interested in international law, human rights and constitutional law. She may be reached at akshitatiwary@gmail.com. The Covid-19 pandemic continues to disrupt lives all over the world. Millions of people have died and the global economy is witnessing a severe recession due to the imposition of lockdowns across nations [1,2]. Little did anyone expect that a virus in Wuhan would culminate into a pandemic of such magnitude. Nonetheless, it cannot be denied that China’s delay in reporting the virus to the World Health Organisation (WHO) and its initial downplay of its severity lead to a deferred response worldwide [3]. This resulted in the virus taking the shape of a global pandemic due to increased spread. In light of such negligence, China can be held liable under the International Law Commission’s (ILC) Articles on State Responsibility for the spread of Covid-19. Photo Credit: Politico By Isabela Baghdady
Isabela Baghdady is a freshman in the College of Arts and Sciences at the University of Pennsylvania with plans to study Philosophy, Politics, and Economics. On September 18, 2020, the American political landscape was transformed: Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, an inspiring champion of women’s rights who served the American people with inimitable passion and precision, passed away. The United States not only lost an icon of the 21st century, but saw a change in the ideological balance of the nation’s highest court. Since RBG’s death, President Trump’s nomination of Amy Coney Barrett to the Court as well as the high probability of a swift Senate confirmation have almost guaranteed the shift of the Supreme Court from a 5-4 to a 6-3 conservative-leaning majority [1]. All the while, liberals’ faith in the judicial system continues to diminish.  By Filzah Belal
Filzah Belal is a final year undergraduate law student at National Law University and Judicial Academy, Assam. Tort law stands on three basic components – a wrongful act or omission, damage to someone else, and a remedy for the damage that occurred. When applied to the tort of negligence, these components point towards the importance of identifying who is at fault. In other words, tort law aims to establish ‘fault-based liability’ wherein the party at fault for damage to another due to wrongful act or omission pays damage. However, tort law also includes a concept of no-fault liability, especially through strict liability and absolute liability. This means that even if one had not committed the wrongful act or omission themselves, they could be held liable.  By Ally Margolis
Ally Margolis is a sophomore in the College of Arts and Sciences studying Political Science. While Philadelphia is reeling from the coronavirus, we have seen both the best and the worst of humanity. Unfortunately, amidst this pandemic, the owner of Hahnemann Hospital refuses to be a team player as city officials try to expand resources to handle the unprecedented surges in hospital visits [1]. When Philly officials inquired about Hahnemann, a closed hospital with room for 500 beds, the building’s owner, Joel Freedman, proposed the city pay one million dollars a month to rent the space [2]. Mayor Jim Kenney characterized this offer as coming from a “multi-millionaire who wanted to maximize his profits,” and argued that a man “with great means” should help during this “terrible crisis” [3]. The city has moved on from Freedman’s offer and was aided by Temple University without charge. However, some Philadelphia residents and politicians are not letting Freedman off so easily.  By Hailie Goldsmith
Hailie Goldsmith is a freshman in the College of Arts and Sciences at the University of Pennsylvania. As the novel coronavirus sweeps across the world, essential medical resources like N95 respirators, surgical masks, and ventilators are in incredibly high demand—and in dwindling supply—in the United States. With the federal government and state governments scrambling to determine ways to mass-produce the necessary materials to manage the pandemic, some public health and policy experts have pointed to the Defense Production Act (DPA) as a solution to spur the production of masks and ventilators and address the urgent needs of the U.S. population.  By Hailie Goldsmith Hailie Goldsmith is a freshman in the College of Arts and Sciences at the University of Pennsylvania. With a presidential election on the horizon in November, each state’s current voting laws and what those laws mean for who can vote become increasingly important.
As of 2016, 6.1 million people could not vote due to a felony conviction and accompanying voting restrictions on released felons; however advocacy groups such as the Sentencing Project hope to reduce this number. Voting restrictions on released felons disproportionately impact black voters, since systemic injustices within the prison system contribute to a higher likelihood of black Americans facing incarceration and felony convictions [1].  By Emma Davies Emma Davies is a sophomore in the College of Arts and Sciences at the University of Pennsylvania, majoring in Philosophy. On February 24, 2020, the Supreme Court added Fulton v. City of Philadelphia to its docket. This case, which was brought by Catholic Social Services (CSS), challenges the City Of Philadelphia’s decision to stop referring foster children to CSS for placement on the grounds that the agency does not certify same-sex couples as foster parents. The agency had lost in lower courts, but appealed their case to the Supreme Court. The ruling of this case may lay out further explanation to the types of religious discrimination claims that warrant legal remedy, alter the decision in Employment Division v. Smith, and address whether the government violates the First Amendment by making participation in the foster-care system contingent on whether an agency conducts themselves in a way that goes against their religious beliefs [1].
|
