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 Alexandra Aaron
Alexandra Aaron is a sophomore at the University of Wisconsin-Madison studying Political Science and History. On Wednesday February 25th, 2015 the Wisconsin legislature passed a highly contentious right-to-work bill that will prevent private-sector employers from requiring their workers to pay union dues. On March 9, presidential hopeful, Governor Scott Walker signed the bill into law, making Wisconsin the 25th so-called right-to-work state. Proponents of this type of legislation argue that the states that have prohibited compulsory union participation attract more business and create more jobs. [1] The opposition contends that these new jobs fail to provide workers with necessary training, security, and adequate wages. [2] Both sides supplement their argument with constitutional claims that address the benefit or harm caused by requiring private-sector employees to pay union dues.
0 Comments
 By Alexandra Aaron
Alexandra Aaron is a sophomore at the University of Wisconsin-Madison studying Political Science and History. In October 2014, a federal district court in Oregon ruled that Secular Humanism qualifies as a religion and adherents are thus entitled to the same constitutional—and, more specifically, First Amendment—protections as other religious groups. This decision has significant implications for atheists and agnostics who have been fighting for recognition and equality under the law. In this case, senior Judge Lance Haggerty agreed with the plaintiffs that denying Humanists the same rights as so called “mainstream” religious groups such as Christianity violated the Establishment Clause, which states that Congress “shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” [1] The case was brought by the American Humanist Association (AHA) and federal prisoner Jason Holder who attempted to organize a Humanist study group but was prohibited from doing so. Should Judge Haggerty’s decision be upheld, Humanist prisoners will be able to meet and study with one another, which is generally only permitted for religious reasons. [2] Moreover, such a ruling has the potential to expand religious protections to atheists and agnostics. 
By Alexandra Aaron
Alexandra Aaron is a sophomore at the University of Wisconsin-Madison studying History and Political Science. On September 26th Thomas Eric Duncan arrived at Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital in Dallas having just returned from Liberia with symptoms consistent with Ebola. Despite having this information, the hospital sent him home. [1] Duncan passed away three weeks later, and anyone he came in contact with is at serious risk of contracting the disease. Failure to correctly diagnose a patient can be the basis for claims of medical malpractice, and in this case the hospital could be liable to anyone infected by Duncan after his release. But, unfortunately for Duncan and those infected, Texas has in recent years become the country’s leader in tort reform, or, what those opposed to it call, “tort deform.” Intended to combat what corporate lobbyists and legislators have dubbed “frivolous lawsuits,” a 2003 Texas law made it nearly impossible to sue for medical malpractice and capped non-economic damages at $250,000 and $100, 00 at certain hospitals for those who do manage to get their day in court.  By Alexandra Aaron
Alexandra Aaron is a sophomore at the University of Wisconsin-Madison studying History and Political Science. Do you have “government approved” photo identification? Most people have driver’s licenses, passports or Student IDs from accredited universities or colleges. However, there are many who do not possess these forms of identification. For those who live in Wisconsin, this is now an issue. In 2011, Governor Scott Walker signed a bill into law that would require government-issued or approved picture identification in order to vote. This Republican-backed law has drawn considerable opposition from Democrats and those that view this measure as an attempt to disenfranchise a socioeconomic demographic of low-income voters that are more likely to vote for Democratic candidates. |
|
|