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.
 By Esther Lee
Esther Lee is a sophomore, studying Philosophy, Politics, and Economics in the College of Arts and Sciences and Finance & Operations in The Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania. With the recent confirmation hearings of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court of the United States, there is undoubtedly a question of whether her presence on the bench could mark an enormous shift for future holdings. If confirmed, Barrett will give the court’s conservative wing a solid 6-3 majority. Currently, Chief Justice John Roberts is the court’s median [1]. Barrett is a self-proclaimed originalist, meaning she believes that constitutional text should be interpreted as “what it did at the time it was ratified and that this original public meaning is authoritative” [2]. One estimate of her ideological leanings is that Barrett will be the third-most conservative justice on the court, to the right of Trump’s previous nominees, Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, and just to the left of Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas. Using Alito’s career as a guide, it is expected that Barrett will reach conservative decisions in 84% of non-unanimous decisions and 71% of all cases [3]. Though these predictions are not always correct — as several of the court’s most liberal justices were appointed by Republican presidents — the conservative legal movement has been able to bring to prominence potential justices, like Barrett, who are consistent ideological conservatives [1].
0 Comments
 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].
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. |
