Two recent Supreme Court decisions highlight some obstacles still impeding the goal of achieving of full gender equality in the workforce through the judicial system. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex in the workplace but in two recent cases, the Supreme Court narrowed the efficacy
I. Introduction The United State of America must comply with the decisions of the International Court of Justice (ICJ). This obligation comes from Article 94 of the United Nations Charter, ratified in 1945.[1] In Medellín v. Texas, the US Supreme Court said that the Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution does not require Texas to
I. Introduction Judicial conflict on the United States Supreme Court is not new.[1] The term “dissenter” carries rich historical meaning, reminding us of Supreme Court Justices such as Justices Oliver Wendell Holmes, Charles Evan Hughes, Louis D. Brandeis, and John Marshall Harlan. The dissenter has traditionally been viewed with skepticism, scorned for challenging the collective
I. INTRODUCTION The recent economic crisis that downed banks and other industry players did not leave the art world untouched. Newspapers report that financially strained museums are resorting to the sale of artwork in order to remain viable.[1] One high-profile case centers on the Rose Museum at Brandeis University in Massachusetts.[2] Another case, although not
I. Introduction “I’ve got a shotgun; do you want me to stop them?”[2] The words are those of Joe Horn, a Texas resident who called 911 after witnessing a robbery next door.[3] Moments later, he decided to act and went outside and shot both Hispanic robbers dead.[4] Horn was later brought before a Texas grand
It is an oft-quoted tenet, originating with the U.S. Supreme Court’s holding in Tinker v. Des Moines Indep. Cmty. Sch. Dist.,[1] that teachers do not “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.”[2] However, this sweeping language, an avowal that once provided educators with broad protections, is now nothing
I. Introduction “[I]t has become evident in the years since . . . that [the] burden-shifting framework is difficult to apply. . . . Thus, even if [the burden-shifting framework were] doctrinally sound, the problems associated with its application have eliminated any perceivable benefit from extending its framework to ADEA claims.”[1] With this sweeping language,
Southern California faces unique challenges for land use and development. With more than 50% of the state’s population and receiving less than 2% of the state’s rain fall per year,[1] water has become one of its main challenges. Furthermore, as a result of Southern California’s varied demography and economic state, environmental justice[2] has emerged as
Introduction The death penalty is a punishment that is unique in its severity and finality. There is no other punitive measure within our criminal system that can truly deprive an individual of their “last chance” like the ultimate penalty, being put to death. The question whether there should be a death penalty in this country
Over the last decade there has been an increase of violent crimes due to gang activity in Latin America.[1] This phenomenon has also increased various types of crimes in Latin America, especially gender-related crimes.[2] Although gangs in Latin America consist mostly of men and many of their targets are men, a large number of women