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.
 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.
0 Comments
 Image Source: Tim Douglas from Pexels By Michael Merolla
Michael Merolla is a first-year student at the University of Pennsylvania’s College of Arts and Sciences studying Political Science. In the 1996 Christmas comedy Jingle All the Way, Arnold Schwarzenneggar and Sinbad ferociously battled each other for an all-important prize: a Turbo-Man toy. [1] The lighthearted film encapsulated the longstanding public perception of Christmas shopping, conjuring images of desperate parents racing through brick-and-mortar stores to fulfill their children’s wishlists. In today’s digital age, millions of American parents now turn to online retailers each year to purchase the season’s most sought after gifts. However, a new competitor has been born from the e-commerce revolution: grinch bots.  Source: The Lorax (1972) “I am the Lorax, I speak for the trees. I speak for the trees, for the trees have no tongues.” By Michael Merolla
Michael Merolla is a first-year student at the University of Pennsylvania’s College of Arts and Sciences studying Political Science. Locus standi, commonly known as legal standing, is the right of a person or group to be heard in court. [1] The concept of “standing” is relatively simple in theory. In order to bring a lawsuit in a court, a party must meet four conditions: interest, injury, causation, and redressability. First, a plaintiff must have a legally recognizable interest in the case. Second, the plaintiff must have suffered an injury or infringement upon their person or rights. Third, the alleged injury must have been caused by the named defendant. Last, a favorable court decision must be able to redress, or alleviate, the injury. However, the concept of legal standing becomes convoluted in the context of environmental law. In America, the environment lacks the right to stand as its own entity. As the global climate crisis worsens, the legal world may be the last resort to deliver the decisive action needed and neglected by political and economic forces for much too long. [2] The question must be asked: Who will speak for the trees in the court of law? |
|
|
