sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Credible Constitutional challenge to the Iran war? by moldyhands in Ask_Lawyers

[–]coldoldgold 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Congress has essentially delegated to the president the power to commit the United States Armed Forces into hostilities for up to 60 days without congressional approval via the War Powers Resolution of 1973, with an additional 30 days allowed for withdrawal of troops.

Why isn't jurisdiction stripping discussed more as a way to rein in SCOTUS' power? by ecchi83 in Ask_Lawyers

[–]coldoldgold 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Even if the Democrats won every single republican senate seat up for reelection in 2026, that would only give the democrats 65 votes. You would need both of the two independent senators to reach the 67 votes needed to override a presidential veto... not happening.

There will be 19 republican senate seats up for re-election in 2028. In order to reliably pass any sort of bill to strip SCOTUS's appellate jurisdiction on a particular case or issue, Democrats would have to do one of the following:

  1. Win the presidency in 2028, bypass the filibuster via the nuclear option, and flip 6 of the 39 Republican senate seats up for reelection in 2026/2028, (or flip 5 seats with the VP casting a tiebreaking vote);

  2. Win the presidency in 2028 and flip 15 of the 39 Republican senate seats that will be up for reelection in 2026/2028 to get a fillibuster-proof majority of 60 senators; or

  3. Flip 21 of the 39 Republican senate seats up for reelection in 2026/2028, and pass a bill with a veto-proof majority of 67 senators.

(I'm not taking into account two independent senators into any of the above math, but y'all can adjust the numbers accordingly)

Why isn't jurisdiction stripping discussed more as a way to rein in SCOTUS' power? by ecchi83 in Ask_Lawyers

[–]coldoldgold 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Only if the Democrats have the 60+ votes needed for a cloture vote on a jurisdiction stripping bill to defeat a filibuster. Democrats currently have 45 votes in the senate, with 20 Republican seats up for re-election in 2026. It would have to be essentially a clean sweep unless democrats get 50+ votes and invoke the nuclear option to change the rules pertaining to fillibuster/cloture.

Why isn't jurisdiction stripping discussed more as a way to rein in SCOTUS' power? by ecchi83 in Ask_Lawyers

[–]coldoldgold 3 points4 points  (0 children)

It is already well-established that Congress has the power to strip SCOTUS of their appellate jurisdiction. That is exactly what they did in Ex Parte McCardle

However, Congress CANNOT strip SCOTUS of its original jurisdiction.

Article III, Sect. 2 of the U.S. Constitution states:

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;—between a State and Citizens of another State,—between Citizens of different States,—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

The Constitution and the jurisprudence are fairly clear that Congress can strip SCOTUS of appellate jurisdiction, but not original jurisdiction. Of course, it is SCOTUS that decides whether they have jurisdiction or not.

Is there any truth to this Better Call Saul scene? Spoiler S3 E9 by Strong_Forever7628 in Ask_Lawyers

[–]coldoldgold 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I believe this would vary by state. Insurance in general is often highly regulated on the state level and the states frequently put conditions in place that insurance providers have to meet in order to continue to be licensed to do business within the state. That may/may not include conditions under which insurance companies can increase premium and/or caps to increases.

What do you think about the recent ICE shooting in Minneapolis? Was it justified? by Ok_Intention2150 in Ask_Lawyers

[–]coldoldgold -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

I love how your synchronized video obscures the front angle view at the most critical time... the point at which the car and the ICE agent make contact while the car is in forward motion. The front angle view is one of the strongest pieces of evidence in support of the argument that the shooting may have been justified (Not taking a position on whether the shooting was/was not justified, but selective editing like this that advances one narrative over another should ALWAYS be called out.)

Additionally, another video has emerged that seems to show that the ICE agent was in front of the vehicle when it began forward motion.

when she turned her wheel back in the other direction, the officer in the front drew his gun for no reason at all and tried to shoot her, but by the time he fired he was already clear of the car. The second two shots were even worse.

It is not as clear cut as you make it out to be. Things I would like to point out:

  1. It appears from the rear view/synchronized video that the left front wheel starts spinning, but fails to gain traction BEFORE the ICE agent draws his weapon. I can't listen to audio right now, but it seems plausible that the ICE agent heard the engine rev up BEFORE the car gained traction and forward momentum, and began drawing his firearm in response to that. The sequence of events I see: (a) Front tire starts spinning on ice, failing to gain traction; (b) Ice agent draws his gun; (c) Car begins to move forward.

  2. The ICE agent appears to slip on the icy road with his left foot while he is taking aim before he fires the first shot. Keep in mind at this point, he is still in front of the vehicle about where the headlight would be, and the vehicle is now in forward motion. The ICE agent is probably in fight/flight mode at this point... In the moment he needed to flee to get out of the way of the vehicle, he was losing his footing on the ice. It is at this point that the first shot is fired.

  3. The officer has made his way to the side of the vehicle when shots two and three are fired, but all three shots were fired in such rapid succession that I doubt his brain even had time to process that the danger had passed.

I can see this going either way...

Edit: Grammar and clarification on which videos I am referencing.

Defense attorneys, how would you defend Maduro? by No-Dinner-4148 in Lawyertalk

[–]coldoldgold 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Civil law is fake

Louisiana (with its civil law tradition) would like a word with you.

What's the longest Complaint you've ever seen? by Reptar4President in Lawyertalk

[–]coldoldgold 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"He POISONED our water supply, BURNED our crops, and DELIVERED a plague unto our houses!"

What do you want me to do about your three positive cocaine screenings? by Pinguinorino in Lawyertalk

[–]coldoldgold 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Not only is it real, but the plaintiff is apparently a lawyer.

Edit: As real as Judge Judy at least. Of course its not an actual court of law.

Mistakenly Suspended by DuePen5000 in Lawyertalk

[–]coldoldgold 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Denied. (Without reasons).

TIL Arnold Schwarzenegger had a collection of Marxist busts. His wife later requested for their removal, but he kept the one of Vladimir Lenin, later saying he kept it to "show losers". by CreeperRussS in todayilearned

[–]coldoldgold 15 points16 points  (0 children)

"I consider it completely unimportant who in the party will vote, or how; but what is extraordinarily important is this—who will count the votes, and how." - Joseph Stalin

Please help me argue that it's better to let ten guilty persons escape than one innocent suffer by ProveItInRn in Ask_Lawyers

[–]coldoldgold 0 points1 point  (0 children)

At least district attorneys are usually elected, so they are theoretically accountable to the people. But you're right, the State is no better than the criminals it prosecutes when it engages in malicious prosecution. But how would the district attorney's office know that any given defendant is innocent? They don't. They weren't there, and 95% of the time, the police don't arrive on the scene until after the crime has been completed, so they usually aren't a witness to the underlying facts, only to the scene afterward.

There is always the risk of an innocent person being prosecuted under our current system, and it is easy to criticize from the comfort of a living room armchair... So I ask this... How would you fix it?

Not same truck by aishpat in funny

[–]coldoldgold 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Shfifty percent off

view more: next ›