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.
 Written by Gabrielle Cohen
Gaby Cohen is a second-year student at the University of Pennsylvania’s College of Arts and Sciences studying philosophy, politics and economics. During the depths of the first nationwide COVID-19 quarantine in 2020, TikTok skyrocketed in popularity as housebound Americans of all ages found solace creating through social media. Beginning early 2021, TikTok users and artists Abigail Barlow and Emily Bear started posting short musical clips they had written based on the Netflix series, Bridgerton. Abigail Barlow is a singer-songwriter, and her partner, Emily Bear, is a piano prodigy and composer. The pair synthesized plot elements, character arcs and direct quotes into lyrics and melodies for a hypothetical musical based on the series. Shonda Rhimes produced Bridgerton as a television series for Netflix based on Julia Quinn’s romance novels written in 2020 [1]. The series explores England’s Regency Era marriage market and follows characters' journeys through the social season, with select modern affectations, such as a racially diverse cast and classical versions of 21st century songs [2]. Barlow and Bear’s posts of their creative process on TikTok allowed them to receive live feedback from their followers and the Bridgerton fan base. This inspired them to workshop, write and revise further.
0 Comments
 Written by Khlood Awan, Edited by Jameson Russell
Walking down the streets of Pakistan’s bazaars, it’s common to see signs saying “Ahamdis and dogs not allowed” or “Ahmadis should enter Islam before entering this shop.” [1] Discrimination, hate, and violence against Ahmadi Muslims — the only Muslim sect to recognize the coming of the Promised Messiah — is wholly normalized in Pakistan. Ahmadi Muslims in Pakistan are facing a genocide perpetrated by Pakistan’s legal system, organized extremist groups, as well as Pakistan’s everyday citizens. Some may argue that the dire situations of Pakistan’s Ahmadi Muslims only constitute crimes against humanity, but through further analysis of the systematic destruction and targeting of the Ahmadiyya community, it becomes clear that the religious minority is facing a genocide.  Written by Ingrid Holmquist
When Roe v. Wade was overturned in 2022, anti-abortion activists and legislators were quick to act. Before the ink dried on Justice Alito’s majority opinion, 13 states’ trigger laws went into effect, instituting near-total bans on abortion with limited exceptions for rape and incest, as well as to protect the health or life of the mother [1]. In emergency medical situations, however, these exceptions remain violently ambiguous and oftentimes prove to be deadly.  A team from Harvard Medical examined 1,433 trials with 302,664 participants and found the percentage of women included in clinical trials and compared it the the percentage of women being affected by the diseases whose clinical trials neglected to include them [1]. Written by Kennedy Kostecki, Edited by Gabrielle Cohen
The National Institutes of Health (NIH) is the primary federal agency responsible for conducting biomedical research in the U.S. and is one of the world's foremost research centers [2]. As the backbone of the medical industry, the NIH provides physicians with the research needed to solve the health problems we face. However, up until the 1990s, the NIH only worked to solve men’s health problems. In 1993, Congress finally passed the NIH Revitalization Act which required that the NIH include women and minorities in all research studies [3]. Despite the Act’s passage, the NIH did not fully comply for years. Additionally, before 1993, women and minorities were not included in the majority of studies, yet the data from those studies is still actively used today. The mistakes of the past were not solved by the Act – research gaps still exist today. Women’s health is standing on a half-built bridge to equality, thwarting them from crossing the finish line.  Note: The opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions of the designated authors and do not reflect the opinions or views of the Penn Undergraduate Law Journal, our staff, or our clients.
Written by Lala Mustafa On the 29th of December, 2023, South Africa initiated litigation against Israel at the International Court of Justice (ICJ), bringing the legal dynamics of genocide into the spotlight and presenting nuanced challenges in international law. South Africa’s claim, rooted in the Genocide Convention of 1948 [2], accuses Israel of actions that, if proven, could amount to genocide against Palestinians in Gaza. While ICJ’s recent provisional measures aim to prevent further harm, the Court has yet to establish jurisdiction definitively, leaving pivotal questions about legal responsibility, state sovereignty, and the very capacity of international law to enforce human rights protections. This case, with its final judgment likely years away, not only tests these legal frameworks but also reveals the ICJ’s enduring limitations in enforcing its rulings against powerful states, underscoring the need for structural changes to strengthen international accountability. However, before examining the ICJ’s weaknesses, it’s essential to understand the details of the case first.  by Nathan Liu, edited by Tammer Maraqa
For years, popular sentiment on the progressive left has been that policymakers need to ‘make the rich pay their fair share,’ generally through levying significant taxes on the wealthy. Last March, Elizabeth Warren proposed her ‘Ultra-Millionaire Tax,’ a wealth tax cosponsored by Bernie Sanders and another eight senators and 29 representatives. Warren’s proposal adds a fundamentally new type of tax on the net worth of households and trusts above $50 million – a tax on assets instead of just income and realized gains – which she believes is far more effective at getting the ultra-rich to ‘pay their fair share.’[1]  During their 2023 Stanley Cup ceremony, the Vegas Golden Knights raised their championship banner out of a slot machine. (Credit: The Athletic) Written by Michael Merolla, Edited by Amanda Pohly
On September 30th, Pete Rose, baseball’s all-time hitting leader, passed away. Over the course of 24 seasons, the man renowned as Charlie Hustle amassed 4256 hits, 17 All-Star recognitions, and 3 World Series titles. [1] For all his undeniable excellence on the field, Rose’s career will forever be marred by controversy. In 1989, reports surfaced that Rose had gambled on major league games, including those involving his own team, the Cincinnati Reds. [2] Following an extensive investigation, the league corroborated the allegations against Rose and permanently banned him from baseball. As a result, he never received the highest honor bestowed by the national pastime: enshrinement in the National Baseball Hall of Fame. Rose was not the first ballplayer to cross this boundary. In 1919, eight Chicago White Sox players were accused of conspiring with professional gamblers to rig the World Series. Now known as the Black Sox Scandal, the ensuing fallout established gambling as the sport’s cardinal sin. [3] For instance, Rule 21, which explicitly bans all Major League Baseball employees from betting on games, hangs in each team’s locker room. [4] A similar regulation exists in just about every professional sports league; employees with direct impact or insider access to the competitions are prevented from wagering on the outcomes. Written by Aaron Tsui, Edited by Lyan Casamalhuapa
Aaron Tsui is a junior studying computer engineering and robotics in the School of Engineering and Applied Science interested in technology law and intellectual property. While it is more than likely that you have heard the term “AI” in the news or in conversations, have you ever asked yourself: “What is AI?” The obvious answer is “artificial intelligence.” From here, you can derive a simple definition that AI is computer-programmed intelligence that can perform actions or reasoning that would otherwise require human intelligence. Simple enough, right? Not quite. Written by Samantha Graines, Edited by Nicole Muravksy
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) is an international court that enforces the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), serving as the primary judicial mechanism for protecting human rights across Europe. It receives applications from individuals, groups, or states alleging human rights violations by member states, orders remedies if violations are found, and puts out rulings that have led to important legal reforms. While the European system for protecting human rights may appear to be a model framework for protecting human rights, in reality, its decision-making processes and jurisprudence are fraught with ambiguity. This ambiguity undermines the consistency and fairness of its rulings, often leaving essential human rights vulnerable to subjective interpretations.  Written by Alyssa Thomas, Edited by Jameson Russell
On September 1st, 2021 Philadelphians awoke to the sound of water rushing past their homes, businesses, and schools. As the Schuylkill River Storm Surge and remnants of Hurricane Ida rushed through the streets of Philadelphia, property was destroyed, highways were taken out of commission, neighborhoods were ransacked, and countless were stranded without water, power, and food [1]. There’s no need to look too far into the past for examples of these terrifying extreme weather events. Let’s consider the past year. Southeastern states like Florida were hit by 13 named storms this year including Hurricanes Beryl, Helene, and Milton: the last two occurring just a few days apart. The death toll for just this year is already 326 with nearly a month and a half still left in hurricane season [2] |
|
|
