The Justice Logo

Brandeis University’s Independent Student Newspaper Since 1949 | Waltham, MA


Eliminating the federal government’s greed for public defenders’ needs

The Bill of Rights guarantees the civil rights of the American people. It symbolizes individuals’ freedoms from higher institutions, particularly from the federal government.  Each amendment in the Bill of Rights speaks of its own freedoms. For example, the Fourth Amendment protects Americans from unreasonable searches and seizures. However, this amendment has been challenged through the process of civil forfeiture. This process allows law enforcement officials to seize assets from those suspected of being involved in illegal activity without charging them with wrongdoing. Law enforcement officials must prove that there is probable cause before they seize an individual's property. The concern with civil forfeiture is that state actors will take advantage of the public by seizing property for their monetary benefit. Instead of feeding the wallets of greedy law enforcement officials, the money can be used to create a more equitable legal system by funding the Public Defender's Office. 

Editorial: An informational guide to voting in the 2020 presidential election

As the 2020 presidential election approaches, questions about registration deadlines, mail-in voting requirements and other available forms of voting participation have become prevalent. With the number of COVID-19 cases rising, these concerns have been magnified as individuals around the country search for the safest way to participate in the voting process. This board would like to encourage all eligible individuals, particularly Brandeis students, to use available resources to facilitate their participation in this year’s presidential, state and local elections. Links to these resources can be found at the bottom of this article. 

Views on the news: Amy Coney Barrett’s confirmation hearing

On Monday, Oct.12, the Senate Judiciary Committee began Supreme Court confirmation hearings for Judge Amy Coney Barrett. Judge Barrett, a textualist and originalist, prefers to interpret the exact words of a legal statute over the intent of the legislature. Throughout the hearing, Judge Barrett evaded answering questions on many topics, including how she would rule in cases involving the Affordable Care Act, Roe v. Wade and President Trump’s use of power. What do you think the purpose of Judge Barrett’s evasions are, especially on topics she has previously commented on elsewhere? Additionally, what do you think about Barrett’s use of originalism and textualism as legal ideologies?  


Arts & Culture

See The Print Version

Follow @TheJustice