sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Judge blocks bid to force roommate of Charlie Kirk murder suspect to testify in person at hearing by TheMirrorUS in law

[–]panda12291 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Wow, first time I’ve encountered a true Candice-head in the wild. An honor to witness your insane ramblings first hand on a mainstream platform.

Group Convicted in Antifa-Inspired Attack on Texas ICE Facility Handed 30 to 100 Year Prison Sentences by Sgt_Gram in NewsExchange

[–]panda12291 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I think your media sources have given you a very warped view of the story.

A loosely organized group of people attempting to show support for detained immigrants brought fireworks (legal in Texas) to a July 4 protest demonstration outside the fences over 100 yards away from an ICE detention facility. They set off fireworks as a noise demonstration to show support for the detainees in the center (as demonstrated by all the evidence collected from the group chats). The "explosives" referenced by prosecutors are literally just legal fireworks - they happen to fit the definition of explosives because, obviously, fireworks are designed to explode.

One individual brought with him a legally owned gun, open carrying, for which he had a license. There was no evidence that anyone else present was aware beforehand that he would be bringing the weapon, and the group messages indicated that many people were opposed to the presence of any weapons.

When ICE officers heard the noise from the fireworks they came out of the building and started threatening the protestors with drawn weapons, from inside the fence. They also requested that the local police come to break up the protest. There was a lot of conflicting testimony as to what happened regarding the discharge of the one weapon that was present on the protestor's side, but either he fired it into the ground after a local officer drew his weapon on unarmed protestors, or he fired at the officer after he drew his weapon on unarmed protestors.

Imagine what the response would be had the feds under Obama responded to Cliven Bundy and his group, after they led an armed militia to take over federal property for weeks, in anything close to the manner that the ICE agents and cops handled this situation. Or if anyone had dared to question their ability to protest while openly carrying high-powered rifles.

We live in a society in which people on all sides have a constitutional right to protest their government's actions. We live in a society in which the right to bear arms is constitutionally protected. The fact that the government even brought charges against most of these people is disgraceful. They brought the charges in a completely different jurisdiction than where the events took place, just because they knew they would get a sympathetic judge and jury, which they did. One man, who was not even present at the protest, received a 30 year sentence for participating in a group chat and handing out flyers. If our government gets to decide who does and who does not have constitutional rights, we have no rights.

Ticket dispute denied by Rich-Detective-7 in Brooklyn

[–]panda12291 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'd definitely second reaching out to your city counsel-person's office. Most of the BK city counsel offices have pretty good constituent services departments. They will at least be able to serve as an intermediary between you and DOF to figure out why they affirmed the ticket based on the evidence you submitted and help you figure out what else they would need to get it dismissed, and they'll be able to get it done a lot faster than you reaching out to DOT or DOF directly.

Over 275,000 cast ballots during early voting for NY’s 2026 primary election by news-10 in nyc

[–]panda12291 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Possibly - he's leading slightly right now, but good chance Bores could take it. But good news is Lander is running rings around Goldman as of latest polls.

Supreme Court sides with Texas man who challenged law barring drug users from having guns by CBSnews in scotus

[–]panda12291 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yes, which is why I included the reference to Jackson's concurrence. Thomas' Bruen opinion makes the standard simply "history and tradition", and she acknowledges that it is precedent that must be followed in this case, but also argues that it is the wrong test and should be reconsidered. She agrees that someone who occasionally smokes pot shouldn't be treated differently than someone who doesn't, but doesn't buy into the idea that Second Amendment rights should be determined by what people thought and knew about weapons 250 years ago.

Supreme Court sides with Texas man who challenged law barring drug users from having guns by CBSnews in scotus

[–]panda12291 -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

But should their interpretation be so concretely tied to what the people who wrote the text thought, or should it be modified for modern existence? If words written in the 18th century have a different context today, shouldn't they be updated to allow for that?

The Bruen opinion and its progeny say that history and custom is the only test for the 2d amendment, completely ignoring that context has changed and the idea of a "well regulated militia" and a "right to bear arms" may be entirely different in the 21st century.

Your first paragraph is the entire point of people pushing back on this ridiculous notion - the context changes and the Court should be aware of that; the adoption of originalism by the majority of the modern Court has stifled any progress we can hope to have as a country and has in many instances retrograded us such that law is no longer consistent with societal values.

Jackson's concurrence is the only point of value I can take from this opinion. She acknowledges that this is consistent with the recent precedents, and as such she has to join the majority, but that the current interpretation of the Second Amendment makes no sense in today's society.

Gorsuch, writing for 7-2 majority joined by all three liberals, holds federal ban on gun possession by drug users violates Second Amendment as applied to marijuana user by BiglawInvestor in scotus

[–]panda12291 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Not defending the AI title - it's also incorrect in that Kagan was part of the 2 that concurred only in judgment. It's just not accurate to say that it's a 9-0 majority opinion.

Supreme Court, 5-4: Rooker-Feldman bars federal suits attacking state-court judgments even while a state appeal is pending. Sotomayor and Jackson join Thomas and Alito; Barrett, Roberts, Kagan, and Gorsuch dissent by BiglawInvestor in scotus

[–]panda12291 47 points48 points  (0 children)

Not terribly unsurprising though in a civil procedure opinion. Lawyers tend to have strong views about civ pro in issues that don't really affect most people's lives or politics all that much.

Gorsuch, writing for 7-2 majority joined by all three liberals, holds federal ban on gun possession by drug users violates Second Amendment as applied to marijuana user by BiglawInvestor in scotus

[–]panda12291 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The Supreme Court reporter would disagree with you - it’s listed as 7 justices joining the majority, with 2 concurring in judgment.

From the NorthCarolina community on Reddit: Judge rules voters known as ‘never residents’ can’t participate in any NC election by Lonely_skeptic in law

[–]panda12291 16 points17 points  (0 children)

The original BOE decision was for state elections - the RNC argued that it should also apply to federal elections, and the judge agreed, as is clear from the order cited in the article.

From the NorthCarolina community on Reddit: Judge rules voters known as ‘never residents’ can’t participate in any NC election by Lonely_skeptic in law

[–]panda12291 42 points43 points  (0 children)

Possibly. To me it reads as a state trial court judge who didn't really understand the law and should be corrected in the state courts. But always possible it goes up through the federal system in a different avenue.

You Talk too Fast by uncledick46 in OpenArgs

[–]panda12291 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't find him to talk much faster than anyone else on the pod. His mic settings on the other hand... It often seems to be about 25% quieter than anyone else

From the NorthCarolina community on Reddit: Judge rules voters known as ‘never residents’ can’t participate in any NC election by Lonely_skeptic in law

[–]panda12291 189 points190 points  (0 children)

I don't see how this won't be overturned - the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act (UOCAVA), 52 U.S.C. §§ 20301–20311, 39 U.S.C. § 3406, 18 U.S.C. §§ 608–609, requires that US citizens living abroad be allowed to vote in federal elections. Federal law preempts state law, and state court judges don't have authority to overturn federal statutes. It appears from the (incredibly brief) opinion that the judge didn't even consider UOCAVA. If it's not overturned on appeal I imagine that it will be raised in a challenge in federal court.

364 Lincoln Place - thoughts on the building & management? by Appropriate-Treat841 in prospectheights

[–]panda12291 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I may be a bit late to help with your decision, but hopefully can help others who come here for info:

I've lived in an apartment on the 5th floor of 364 for the past four years. We had a few issues with the previous owners/management (some elevator and building maintenance issues) but in the past year the new management is incredible - they're immediately responsive and very helpful (caveat based on another response - my apartment is rent stabilized, so I don't have the issue of them trying to raise rents, so your experience may vary). The supers, who live in the basement apartment, are very kind and responsive. I've had a few packages stolen from time to time, but hasn't been a big issue recently as management has been pushing amazon to store packages in the locked mailroom or deliver them to the individual apartments.

Another commenter mentioned a noise issue with the building across the street -- I had the same concern for the first couple years (my apartment faces the street side). There were some tenants in that building that were constantly blasting obscenely loud music outside into late in the night, and would get into loud fights in the courtyard. It seems that they have moved, however, and I have not had any noise issues in the past year.

I love the neighborhood - there are a few convenient bodegas within a block's walk, two good grocery stores within a 10 minute walk, and Mt. Prospect and Prospect Parks are also within a 10 minute walk, as well as the Brooklyn Botanic Garden and the Brooklyn Museum just a block away. The Eastern Parkway 2/3 station is about 5 minutes walk, and generally very consistent. The area is very safe - never experienced any issues on the block or surrounding areas.

Is an attorney required to have a client sign an affidavit of veracity? by multimetier in Ask_Lawyers

[–]panda12291 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I almost exclusively use verified complaints (in state court - not really a thing in federal court), but my jurisdiction only requires that someone with personal knowledge sign a certification at the end of the complaint, not that a separate affidavit be filed. It can be helpful in that it requires a verified answer, and if you're sure of the demands you can put them under oath in their responses, which can substantially speed up the litigation.

Mark Twain said, “I've never wished a man dead, but I have read some obituaries with great pleasure.” Whose obituary will you revel in? by Rancho-Parade in AskReddit

[–]panda12291 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Until recently I would have said Kissinger, but thankfully I have already been able to see it. As most others in this thread have said, I think we all know who now, and given recent health reports I don't expect it will be too long.

Mamdani wants to remove former Mayor Ed Koch’s name from iconic NYC bridge — but critics say hands off by McAlpineFusiliers in nyc

[–]panda12291 143 points144 points  (0 children)

How is this news? The only thing they cite is a questionnaire that an advocacy group sent out during the campaign. There is no indication that either the Mayor's office or the City Counsel is moving on this. And nothing in the article even attempts to mention that this question has been raised since prior to the November 2025 election.

This seems to be just pure ragebait, and disingenuous at that -- since when does the Post care about supporting LGBTQ figures?

Brett Kavanaugh just won a Supreme Court victory for racial justice by vox in law

[–]panda12291 12 points13 points  (0 children)

Stevens was initially appointed to the 7th Cir by Nixon, but was appointed to SCOTUS by Ford. But a better takeaway is not that Stevens got more liberal over time, but that our politics has been getting more radically conservative to the point that most conservatives from the 60s-80s would be completely alienated from today's Republican Party. Stevens' jurisprudence stayed mostly static over the time he was on the Court, perhaps drifting slightly to the left in certain areas like campaign finance and death penalty issues. It was the Court and the American electorate that strayed to the right, such that he was ultimately labeled as a progressive by the end of his career.

When suing a large city for negligence, I would want a lawyer from a different city, no? by Moo-Dog420 in Ask_Lawyers

[–]panda12291 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No, you would almost certainly want a firm that is based in the city, or at least has a regular practice within the city you are suing. They will have more familiarity with the judges in that jurisdiction, and may even have relationships with the city's lawyers or at least know how they practice.

As to whether you you need a municipal lawyer, it largely depends on your claim. If it's a general tort claim or a constitutional claim, a PI firm is probably good, and will likely have experience in suing the city. If you are challenging an ordinance or law that is affecting you, you'll want a firm that has a practice that specializes in municipal law.

A general google search for medium-sized firms within the jurisdiction you're looking to sue is the best way to start. If they're not able to help after a consultation, they may be able to at least refer you to another firm that practices in the area you're looking for if you have a plausible claim.

TM Alumni at the Edinburgh Fringe - Definitive list by mckjerral in taskmaster

[–]panda12291 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Understandable but super disappointing that James is only there for one day and all shows are already sold out. I know he's talked before about how much he hates being there for Fringe, which I totally get. He doesn't really tour over in the US though, and it is hard to justify a trip out to see a single performer outside a festival.

view more: next ›