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 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.
0 Comments
 By Nicholas Williams Nicholas Williams is a freshman in the College of Arts and Sciences planning on majoring in Political Science. The current federal court system was created by the Judiciary Act of 1789. The law created three levels of federal courts: district courts, circuit (or appellate) courts, and the Supreme Court [1]. Today, there are 94 district courts, 13 circuit courts, and one Supreme Court [2], all with the power to issue injunctions - an order that stops a party from continuing a certain action, or, sometimes in the case of the federal government, enforcing a certain policy.
 By Nicholas Williams
Nicholas Williams is a freshman in the College of Arts and Sciences planning on majoring in Political Science. In Federalist No. 78, Alexander Hamilton declared the judicial branch to be the weakest of the three branches of government [1]. He also wrote that the judiciary must remain “truly distinct” from the legislative and executive branches so as to not encroach upon the general liberty of the people. The Supreme Court has thus historically stayed clear of any issues that fall under the purview of the legislative and executive branches; more generally, the Court will not hear cases which it determines present political questions. It will also refuse to hear cases that do not present a clear judicially-manageable, non-political standard of deciding the case on its merits. These two instances wherein the Court refuses to hear a case are collectively known as the political question doctrine. What constitutes a political question is not always clear, and the doctrine has led to some contentious cases. However, the doctrine also has significant implications for the current legal and political climate.  By Nicholas Williams Nicholas Williams is a freshman in the College of Arts and Sciences at the University of Pennsylvania, planning on majoring in political science. Administrative law, the body of law that regulates the actions of administrative government agencies, has become increasingly important. Indeed, the Supreme Court barred the Trump administration from putting a question on the 2020 Census that asked people their citizenship status because the Court found that the Census Bureau gave a pretextual reason for their decision to enstate such a question. This was found to be a violation of the Administrative Procedure Act [1], which governs the formulation and establishment of regulations by federal agencies [2]. This is only one of numerous lawsuits that have been filed against the Trump administration regarding violation of the act [3]. In recent years, numerous Supreme Court cases have been decided that seek to challenge precedent regarding administrative law. In the Court’s 2018 term, two important administrative law cases were decided: Kisor v. Wilkie and Gundy v. United States.
 By Nicholas Williams
Nicholas Williams is a freshman in the College of Arts and Sciences at the University of Pennsylvania, planning on majoring in political science. At his confirmation hearing in September of 2018, then-Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh said that, if confirmed, he would “always strive to be a team player on the Team of Nine” [1]. Since his confirmation hearing and subsequent confirmation, many Democratic presidential candidates have been open to expanding this “Team of Nine,” including Elizabeth Warren [2], who has recently overtaken Biden for the top spot in the Democratic primary, according to recent polls [3]. Warren claims that such court-packing efforts would “depoliticiz[e]” the Supreme Court [2]. While Warren is correct that the Supreme Court is becoming increasingly politicized, expanding the Supreme Court is not the answer to this problem. |
|
|