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 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 [email protected]. The Protest “Maang wahi hai – jal, jungle, zameen,” This statement that translates to “our demand is the same – water, forest and land,” echoed in India’s capital, Delhi, on November 21, 2019 where about 1000 people from Adivasi and forest-dwelling communities from different states of India had assembled for their decades old demand of water, forest and land [1]. This marked a protest against the order passed by the Supreme Court of India on February 13, 2019 [2] evicting the Adivasis from their habitat and seeking the implementation of the dormant Forest Rights Act of 2006 [3].
0 Comments
 By Nicholas Williams
Nicholas Williams is a sophomore in the College of Arts & Sciences from Los Angeles, California who plans on majoring in Political Science and History. As the 2020 election draws to an end and results come in, one outcome is clear: there will be two runoff elections for Georgia’s seats in the United States Senate in January, 2021 [1]. One of these runoff elections, between incumbent Republican Senator Kelly Loeffler and the Democratic challenger Raphael Warnock, is a runoff for what is known as a “special” election. But what makes special elections special? First, it is important to note the two other main kinds of elections: primary elections and general elections. In primary elections, voters express their preferences for who will compete in the general election. In the United States, this is often done via “closed” or “semi-closed” primaries, where voters choose candidates affiliated with a party to advance to the general election [2]. The winner of the general election then officially wins the office for which he is running.  By Sneha Sharma
Sneha is a junior in the School of Arts and Sciences at the University of Pennsylvania majoring in Politics, Philosophy, & Economics and minoring in Healthcare Management and Engineering Entrepreneurship. Recently, four congresswomen; Ayanna Pressley (MA-07), Rashida Tlaib (MI-13), Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (NY-14) and Ilhan Omar (MN-05) sent a letter to UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Michelle Bachelet. This letter called for the organization to launch independent investigations into the reported human rights abuses committed by the US Department of Homeland Security (DHS), its components, and its private contractors. Many significant groups such as the SPLC and the Human Rights Watch also co-signed the letter.[1] In the current socio-political climate, some argue that it is an expected but nonetheless rare occasion to witness sitting US congressional representatives release such a strong statement against their own government.  By Albert Manfredi
Albert “Albi” Manfredi is a sophomore in the School of Engineering and Applied Science at the University of Pennsylvania. He intends to major in chemical and biomolecular engineering and hopes to complete the joint legal studies and history minor between The Wharton School and the College of Arts and Sciences. In the midst of a tumultuous year, the Department of Justice (DOJ) has recently filed historic antitrust lawsuits against large technology companies like Google and Visa. For some, this course of action is long overdue as the lax enforcement of antitrust allowed big information technology companies like Google, Facebook, Amazon, and Apple, to control the internet, extract huge fees from manufacturers, and dominate markets to limit competition and consolidate economic power [1]. For corporate America, these new suits have the potential to create a precedent for future cases, bringing a more regulated approach to the industry.  By Sophie Lovering
Sophie Lovering is a junior in the College of Arts and Sciences at the University of Pennsylvania majoring in Philosophy, Politics, and Economics (PPE) and minoring in American Sign Language and Deaf Studies. This November, the state of Oregon took the historical step of decriminalizing the possession of small amounts of hard drugs such as cocaine, methamphetamine, and heroin [1]. Measure 110, which passed with 55.8% of the vote, does not impact the possession of larger amounts of these drugs, which could still result in a misdemeanor charge [2]. Decriminalization was not the only matter up for a vote; Measure 110 also expands access to “addiction assistance and other health services” [2].  By Sophie Lovering
Sophie Lovering is a junior in the College of Arts and Sciences at the University of Pennsylvania majoring in Philosophy, Politics, and Economics (PPE) and minoring in American Sign Language and Deaf Studies. In the midst of a contentious election and deadly pandemic, many Americans are facing, for the first time in their lives, the possibility that their vote might not count. As of October 25, over 59 million Americans have voted early [1]. With debates over the validity of mail-in voting and how to vote, confusion remains over what voters must do to ensure that their votes count [2].  By Lyndsey Reeve
Lyndsey Reeve is a sophomore in the College of Arts and Sciences at the University of Pennsylvania studying International Relations. In June, the historic “one country, two systems” principle outlined in Hong Kong’s constitution--allowing the polity to retain economic, governmental, and legal independence from mainland China--was violated with a crushing national security law. The legislation allowed Beijing to set up its own national security agency in Hong Kong and granted China total legal jurisdiction in “complex” and “serious” national security cases. Additionally, the law imposed a public “national security education” in schools and media and aimed to quell protests with jail time [1]. Both closed-door trials and wire-tapping are permissible under the law, while internet providers may have to hand over private data, and a wide range of behaviors such as damaging public transport facilities can be considered terrorism [2]. Pushing back against the national security law, protestors took up “five demands,” among them amnesty for arrested protestors and universal suffrage. They also advocated for an independent inquiry into alleged police brutality, an end to the protests’ characterization as riots, and the legislation’s withdrawal [3].  By: Evelyn Bond
Evelyn is a junior in the College of Arts & Sciences; majoring in Political Science and minoring in Spanish. As November 3rd quickly approaches, a record number of ballots have already been cast in the 2020 election by voters across the country [1]. Driven by a commitment to democracy, and in response to recent incidents of social injustices and the grossly negligent mishandling of the COVID-19 pandemic, the 2020 election is nothing short of highly contentious. In the battleground state of Pennsylvania, nearly 9 million residents have registered to vote, and 3 million ballot applications have already been approved [2]. With its 20 electoral votes, the Keystone State is crucial in determining the election’s outcome [3]. While an unprecedented turnout of voters is guaranteed, there is litigation in place hindering the voting process. Electoral challenges plague the country as the voting-by-mail option is made available to everyone for the first time and the pandemic ravages the world. In Pennsylvania alone, legal disputes over voting rules, illegal poll watchers, and an abundance of misinformation have added to the normal challenges of a presidential election.  By Jessica "Lulu" Lipman
Lulu is a junior in the College of Arts and Sciences at the University of Pennsylvania majoring in English. Despite the widespread belief that child marriage only occurs in third-world countries, more than 248,000 children were married in America between 2000 and 2015. Although to marry, a person must be 18, 46 states currently have loopholes that allow minors to do so. Such laws vary by state; in North Carolina, for example, if a 14-year-old becomes pregnant, she can marry as long as she has the court's approval [1].  By Nihal Sahu Nihal is a B.A. LL.B (Hons.) Candidate at the National University of Advanced Legal Studies in India, and serves as the Managing Editor (Blog) of the NUALS Law Journal. At the moment, Nihal is deeply interested in the relationship between religion and the Indian state. The conviction and sentencing of Prashant Bhushan - one of India’s leading liberal lawyers - for contempt of court was deeply troubling. The Indian Supreme Court’s judgment comes at a critical moment in India’s constitutional history, marked by serious concerns about whether the Court is fulfilling its duty as a protector of civil liberties. The Bhushan case, while dispiriting, is not entirely unprecedented. Politicians and writers critical of the Court have been prosecuted for contempt before. However, the case is still worth examining because it serves as a reminder that institutions, including courts, are merely, to paraphrase Emerson, the lengthened shadows of men[1]. It reminds us that the judicial office is not somehow transformative, that judges do not abandon their prejudices when they don the robe.
|
|
|
