Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Politics
Eugene Volokh | 9.22.2025 3:00 AM
Start your day with Reason. Get a daily brief of the most important stories and trends every weekday morning when you subscribe to Reason Roundup.
NEXT: Trump's Harmful and Illegal Plan to Gut H-1B Visas by Imposing $100,000 Fees
Hide Comments (155)
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Senior U. S. District Judge Steven Merryday has entered a sua sponte order striking Donald Trump's 85 page complaint in the matter of Donald J. Trump v. New York Times Company, et al. To quote from the order:
[A] complaint remains an improper and impermissible place for the tedious and burdensome aggregation of prospective evidence, for the rehearsal of tendentious arguments, or for the protracted recitation and explanation of legal authority putatively supporting the pleader’s claim for relief. As every lawyer knows (or is presumed to know), a complaint is not a public forum for vituperation and invective — not a protected platform to rage against an adversary. A complaint is not a megaphone for public relations or a podium for a passionate oration at a political rally or the functional equivalent of the Hyde Park Speakers’ Corner. A complaint is a mechanism to fairly, precisely, directly, soberly, and economically inform the defendants — in a professionally constrained manner consistent with the dignity of the adversarial process in an Article III court of the United States — of the nature and content of the claims. A complaint is a short, plain, direct statement of allegations of fact sufficient to create a facially plausible claim for relief and sufficient to permit the formulation of an informed response. Although lawyers receive a modicum of expressive latitude in pleading the claim of a client, the complaint in this action extends far beyond the outer bound of that latitude.
[A] complaint remains an improper and impermissible place for the tedious and burdensome aggregation of prospective evidence, for the rehearsal of tendentious arguments, or for the protracted recitation and explanation of legal authority putatively supporting the pleader’s claim for relief. As every lawyer knows (or is presumed to know), a complaint is not a public forum for vituperation and invective — not a protected platform to rage against an adversary. A complaint is not a megaphone for public relations or a podium for a passionate oration at a political rally or the functional equivalent of the Hyde Park Speakers’ Corner.
A complaint is a mechanism to fairly, precisely, directly, soberly, and economically inform the defendants — in a professionally constrained manner consistent with the dignity of the adversarial process in an Article III court of the United States — of the nature and content of the claims. A complaint is a short, plain, direct statement of allegations of fact sufficient to create a facially plausible claim for relief and sufficient to permit the formulation of an informed response. Although lawyers receive a modicum of expressive latitude in pleading the claim of a client, the complaint in this action extends far beyond the outer bound of that latitude.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flmd.447437/gov.uscourts.flmd.447437.5.0.pdf?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
The offending pleading is here: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flmd.447437/gov.uscourts.flmd.447437.1.0.pdf
The complaint in a federal lawsuit is not a vehicle for self-aggrandizement of the plaintiff. Its purpose is to advise the defendant(s) of what conduct they are being called upon to answer and to apprize the court of the nature of the plaintiff's legal theories and the basic factual underpinnings of such theories in the case at bar.
After reading the complaint, I noted last week that the wording was just an amateur jeremiad without every bothering to employ legal reasoning
An opinion issued by a federal judge is “not a megaphone for public relations or a podium for a passionate oration at a political rally or the functional equivalent of the Hyde Park Speakers’ Corner.” Funny how that keeps happening. Even more hilarious when the legal profession cheers it on, while pontificating on objective justice and constitutional order.
I guess neutering CBS news and 60 minutes did pay off for Larry Ellison...
https://apnews.com/article/tiktok-china-trump-social-video-platform-oracle-cbffc62506b3f4533ed327a37ac38ad3
Actually its Ellison's son David's company Skydance that acquired CBS.
If you look up David Ellison Skydance then you see 58 contributions to (D)'s, zero (R)'s. Looks like he gave $10,000 to every state Democratic campaign committee, among other contributions, and those are just the ones he had to declare.
https://www.opensecrets.org/donor-lookup/results?employ=Skydance&name=David+Ellison&order=asc&sort=D
Yes, I'm sure David Ellison's business affairs are just as independent from his father's as Trump's son's are.
...or Biden's son was.
LOL. You guys are going to keep saying that until someone believes it.
I'm glad you still feel some shame about having voted for the most corrupt president in US history. Otherwise you wouldn't need to make up such nonsense to clear your conscience.
+1
Hey Boy disagrees.
So to be clear, you believe that Ellison and Trump's sons business decisions are directly connected to their fathers but Hunter was a savvy, successful independent business man?
That's (D)ifferent, of course. And the business decisions and success of Joe Biden's brother obviously were not affected by his father's political interests or connections, either.
No, I think Hunter Biden is a terrible businessman who traded on his father's name.
I guess the sad part is that I'm not sure which president you are talking about - seriously, which one is the most corrupt?
Yes, that is sad.
I doubt he voted for Biden
Somin is at it again with importing people as though they are chattel.
Going after the colleges and their over-hyped worth is more important. More so too is the excessive indulgence given to native Americans. Make public schools teach basics and get rid of the touchy feely molly coddling stuff. Spartanize the youth again and make them hungry. Religion and self-control too. Our nation must absorb those already here. If these new people are worth keeping , then OK.
This weekend far-right thugs in The Hague did battle with the police and attacked the headquarters of the centrist D66 party.
https://www.dutchnews.nl/2025/09/anti-immigration-arrest-total-hits-37-four-police-officers-hurt/
On Saturday even the far-right leader Geert Wilders condemned these riots. But yesterday the finance minister was already on TV expressing outrage that D66 was "politicising" the attack.
...and obviously nobody will be surprised to learn that Twitter on Saturday was full of stories about how a peaceful protest by concerned citizens had been disturbed by Antifa troublemakers. People were shocked that somehow the right got blamed for this mess, when all they did was march down the street with NSB flags, shouting antisemitic slogans, making Nazi salutes, set fire to police cars, throw rocks at the D66 offices, etc. If a concerned citizen can't even do that, what can they do in a free society?
This story will amuse some people here:
ABN Amro, one of the major Dutch banks, is recruiting a new chairman. And one of the job requirements is that it has to be a man. By law at least a third of the supervisory board has to be made up of each gender, and with the male current chairman stepping down, they will have too few men unless they recruit a man to replace him. (Currently the supervisory board has four women and three men.)
Similar to the rather ridiculous requirement on the NFL that for major hires like Head Coach and GM, at least one minority has to be interviewed.
Its ridiculous because even when the team has already 100% decided who they will hire if they are available before they have interviewed anyone, they still have to go through that charade, which seems to me is belittling, interviewing a Black coach for a position only to check a box.
Clear example of that is when the Chargers hired Jim Harbaugh in the off-season. If he wanted the job it was his, nobody else was going to ace the interview and snag it. But they still had to drag someone in to check the box that they interviewed a minority and pretend they had a shot.
Is that really similar?
Well, obviously there's a slight difference: The NFL's immutable characteristic quota kicks in at the interview stage, while the bank's requirement kicks in at the hiring stage.
That actually makes the NFL's quota more defensible, because they're still allowed to make the final decision meritocratic, while the bank is absolutely constrained to make sex a deciding hiring criterion.
Well, the quota is 1/3, so a lot of the time it is not a binding constraint. That's exactly why this situation was noteworthy enough to make the newspaper.
Also amusing:
The newly appointed French prime minister Sébastien Lecornu got busted lying on his CV. He always claimed to have an LLM, but now it turns out he dropped out after one year.
In many countries a politician would have to resign over something like this. My sense is that in France he might survive, in part because the French care less about little lies like this, and in part because the French prime minister's job is to navigate the space between the president and the parliament, and as long as he does that successfully, nothing else really matters.
Maybe like Senator Poke-a-Hontas he has 1/1024 of an LLM
One thing I noticed of note at Charlie Kirk's funeral today was Elon Musk in Trump's skybox, that was about an hour or so before Trump spoke. As far as I know that's the first time they have spoken since Elon flaked out a few months ago.
The other thing that stuck out is after Erika Kirk in her speech said she forgave "that young man", Charlies Killer, Trump said: "I hate my opponent and I don't want the best for them."
In a little fuller context this is what Trump said: "He did not hate his opponents. He wanted the best for them. That's where I disagreed with Charlie. I hate my opponent and I don't want the best for them. I'm sorry. I am sorry, Erika. But now Erika can talk to me and the whole group and maybe they can convince me that that's not right. But I can't stand my opponent. Charlie's angry. Look at that. He's angry at me that he wasn't interested in demonizing anyone. He was interested in persuading everyone to the ideas and principles he believed were good, right and true."
I can see why the Russian Orthodox Church has already started the process of making Charlie Kirk a saint...
https://x.com/kadmitriev/status/1969498768585155032
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/international/us/charlie-kirks-legacy-finds-a-place-in-russian-orthodox-church-publication-assassinated-tpusa-co-founder-honored-for-contributions-to-christianity-with-deepest-respect/articleshow/124023627.cms
I see that the leader of the Bosnian Serbs was also deeply spiritually moved by Kirk's death. Noscitur a sociis...
https://srna.rs/novost/1332830/dodik-lit-candle-in-serbian-russian-church-in-memory-of-charlie-kirk
There is no need to recite the piety that Charlie Kirk should not have been murdered, every time his supporters renew advocacy of Charlie Kirk's racist, sexist, homophobic, anti-labor, religiously bigoted policies. Those supporters revisit Kirk's murder with an eye to advance those policies. That is called waving the bloody shirt, and it is a political tactic as old as violent politics itself. To whatever extent Kirk's life may have had dignity and virtue, that kind of advocacy by vicious policy advocates detracts from remembrance of it.
No, your piety that you are constrained to recite is the bit about accusing him of being racist, sexist, blah blah blah. YOUR piety requires you to speak ill of the dead, if they were political foes.
You treat disagreement with your own views as a moral failing, and then expect the people who disagree with your views to agree with your moral assessments. That's amazingly silly. But I guess it does have the 'advantage' that you never have to worry about being opposed to somebody who is a good guy...
lathrop and his fellow travelers are dancing on the grave.
Do you want me to link to the Carter thread again, Brett?
Spare us all your falls pieties and high-horse condemnations. You find evil commie liberals behind everything you don't like, governmental or no.
Explaining why dei is racist is racism? Exposing racism is racism?
Who will be the next Prime Minister of Japan? The race started today - five LDP politicians are running in the party leadership election.
Mr. Kobayashi, former economic security minister, argues in favor of income tax cuts; he also proposes increasing defense budget, abolishing the "temporary rate" of gasoline tax (which, despite its name, is permanent); and as NHK reports, he's also in favor of laws reducing immigration and criminalizing "foreign disinformation".
Mr. Motegi is the only candidate who explicitly named the parties he would invite to the next cabinet - Ishin and DPFP, both centrist-to-center-right parties. He suggests giving trillions of yen to local governments that they can freely use (I suspect most of them just write checks to their residents); he also supports gasoline tax cuts, and is open to discussions on sales tax reform.
Mr. Hayashi, the current Cabinet Secretariat, is proposing what appears to be a refundable tax credit for low- and middle class, though reports are unclear. He also says he would bring back multimember districts in the lower house election, reversing 3-decades-old practice of single-member districts.
Mr. Koizumi, the young politician now heading the Ministry of Agriculture, proposes tying tax brackets to inflation; immediate abolition of the "temporary" rate; subsidies to rice farmers; and immigration control - but backs out on relaxing labor laws, something he was criticized for last year.
Ms. Takaichi, also a former economic security minister, proposes refundable tax credits; temporary rate abolition; relaxing wage and hour laws; and some right-wing policies - like 100% energy self-sufficiency; anti-espionage laws; committee on foreign investment; and strict immigration enforcement. If elected, she would be the first woman to lead the party.
Could you explain the process for choosing a new leader? Is it a vote among MPs, or do the members (if any) of the LDP also have a say?
Both have equal voice in the first round - the 295 MPs cast their ballots; and another 295 votes are proportionally distributed according to members' choice.
If someone gets a majority, they win; if not, then a second round is triggered - 295 MPs, plus 47 representatives from each prefecture's branch. Whoever gets the plurality wins.
Ms. Takaichi, if elected, would be Trump's best friend. She proposed shutting down TV stations for biased reporting a decade ago!
Do they call that the “Nuclear”Option?
That strikes me as an assortment of choices which suggests Japan is drifting back toward its former status as a strange foreign land. I do not oppose those on principle. I think they add to the interest of living with global awareness.
There is cause to worry when ideologues advocate interventions with an eye to "encourage," American-style politics abroad. Of course, the more threatening American-style politics become, the more dangerous that kind of intervention becomes.
If you were to assign them sumo rankings, who would you say are yokozunas, ozekis, maegashira #14, etc.?
RE: H-1B fee of 100K
Q: Will tech companies pay it? Yes or no?
Q: If not, how many fewer H-1B visas will be issued (currently 85K annually), how many H-1Bs will be issued with the 100K fee?
Q: How many companies will simply bribe Trump to get a waiver instead?
Q1. Some will, especially if it's a one-time fee. $100,000 over six years is just ~$17,000 a year. For high end tech positions, that's very do-able, especially if salaries are already well into six figures.
Q2: That's a more interesting question. Right now there's a lottery (never ideal) for the supposed "high demand" jobs. Only 20% of applications are actually filled.
Many of them go to consulting/contracting firms that have fairly low average pays for the supposedly high demand position. (~$68,000 a year I've seen). They basically import cheap workers for 3-6 years, then let them go back. At a $100,000 fee...that starts to be a less viable model. But, still, there's actually 5 times the amount of applicants for these visas.
You might actually still fill all the positions. I'd guess at least 50% of the visas still go through.
To put this into a little bit of context....if a company hires someone through a recruiter, there's typically a substantial fee: 15-30% of the employee's first year salary. So, for a $100,000 a year job, the company will be spending an extra $15,000 to $30,000 to the recruiting company to bring the person onboard. If it's a $300,000 a year job, you're looking at $45,000 to $90,000 in recruitment fees.
It's for high demand positions, but it's clearly a viable model. If I had to take a guess, that's how Tata and other large contracting companies work. They apply for a large number of H1B visas. Pay the modest fees (a few thousand). Then send them off to a job that's recruited them for the recruitment fee ($10,000-$20,000, or more). And it make Tata a nice profit.
Now $100,000 is a somewhat more than that. But the H1B in some ways "locks in" the employee to 3-6 years at the company. So for high-end high-demand positions, it may well be worth it.
I'd guess all 85K still get filled, but it might be a close thing.
It will certainly decrease the attractiveness for lower quality consulting jobs, which is probably a good thing, although that probably could have done just through salary prioritization. The overall set of changes will pretty strongly favor the big tech companies getting nearly all of the H1-B visas each year, which may be problematic for other types of roles such as health care.
The fee is paid one time, not annually. It's still worth bringing in an Indian who will work for $120K instead of hiring an American who wants $160K, if you expect the Indian to be tied to your company for three years or longer. Naturally there will be some price elastiticty.
Based on the State Department's summary, it's a fee to apply for a visa and not a fee to get a visa. Applicants are not guaranteed to get anything in return for $100,000. For a big company the risk averages out.
https://www.state.gov/h-1b-faq/
The hunters becoming the hunted: antifa
FBI-Dir Patel has announced a robust effort to identify, disrupt and detain antifa members in the US, in response to the Kirk assassination.
My question: What's the federal charge? Conspiracy? Sedition?
How can you tell that someone is an Antifa member? Special tattoo?
Own a bicycle chain? Antifa! Or at the very least, a vicious leftist getting in the way of real Americans driving cars.
"By their fruits..."?
So your proposal is to arrest everyone who succeeds in interfering with fascism in America? Interesting...
A fine knack you have there of putting your words into other people's comments.
Feel free to explain what you meant by "By their fruits..."? That way I don't have to guess.
Playing stupid is beneath you. "The phrase "by their fruits" refers to the biblical teaching that a person's true character can be judged by their actions and behaviors, similar to how a tree is recognized by the fruit it produces. This concept is found in Matthew 7:16-20, where Jesus warns about false prophets and emphasizes that good trees bear good fruit, while bad trees bear bad fruit."
Yes, that's how I interpreted your comment. The good tree bears good fruit, so your proposal is to arrest all the trees that bear good fruit. What am I missing here?
Failed horticulture!
I think what you're missing is that we don't regard smashing windows, looting stores, setting cars on fire, beating people up, and so forth, as good fruit.
January 06.
September 20
https://www.dutchnews.nl/2025/09/riots-in-the-hague-blended-far-right-with-football-hooliganism/
Yeah, and I'd be glad to lump the Proud Boys in with Antifa.
Martinned, it would be inappropriate to tar broad associations like "the left" or "the right" with the violence committed by distinct groups on their extremes.
It is NOT inappropriate to tar those distinct groups with the violence they commit.
Antifa is such a distinct group, where people band together just exactly to commit violence.
A whole summer of Burning, Looting, and Murdering -- and Gaslighto worries about a rowdy frat party.
ANTIFA can just start calling themselves - and also pretend to be - the Oath Keepers or Proud Boys. No one will be able to tell the difference.
And since when does the Regime need something as mundane as charges? Just ship them to some foreign gulag, no criminal charges necessary.
Well, of course, shipping you to a foreign land doesn't require criminal charges, when the US itself is a foreign land for you.
But I will admit that shipping people direct to foreign prisons when they haven't been convicted of crimes is an inexcusable addition to deportation.
Look, Antifa is a terrorist group. You can deny that they're an "organization", adopting a loose cell organizational structure is meant to enable that claim, but they ARE terrorists. And the government isn't obligated to take the claim that they're not really an organization on faith. Maybe they actually ARE an organization that just uses a deniable front end to protect the leadership, you'd never know if you didn't try to find out.
But they ARE terrorists, whatever you say about their organizational structure, and I'm not going to weep if the same government that was finding excuses to lock people up for praying in front of abortion facilities starts looking for excuses to lock up terrorists.
Here's a really weird idea: Try debating your foes, instead of dressing in black and beating on them!
Once the government has decided that it doesn't really need to prove that in a court of law, that becomes a fictitious requirement.
What's the point of debating people who aren't interested in truth, facts, or logic, but only in power?
I will agree that, for deportation, you need at the least enough due process that a person who's actually a citizen will have the opportunity to prove it. That due process is a lot less than a criminal trial, though.
"What's the point of debating people who aren't interested in truth, facts, or logic, but only in power?"
You've got that backwards: The point of declaring that your opponents aren't interested in truth, fact, or logic, but only power, is that it spares the need to debate them; You can get right down to caving in their skulls with bike locks, or whatever.
The key point of deciding that it's OK to punch Nazis, is that once you've decided that, the working definition of "Nazi" inevitably becomes "Anybody I'd like to punch".
I will agree that, for deportation, you need at the least enough due process that a person who's actually a citizen will have the opportunity to prove it.
Given that that's not the world we're living in, what's the point of having this conversation? The only due process that the Regime will accept is no due process.
Sure, "inevitably".
But, why should I concede that point? I don't think we actually ARE living in this dystopian world where ICE are just picking up people at random, or enemies of the regime, and shipping them off to foreign gulags.
I think we're actually living in the rather less dystopian world where ICE are picking up people who presumptively ARE illegal aliens, and occasionally making mistakes.
Of course, people who don't want illegal aliens deported in the first place aren't going to be too eager to make that distinction...
Now, I will concede this much: I think that Trump is doing this in a somewhat abusive manner, in an effort to strongly motivate illegal aliens to self-deport without forcing us to find them. I don't approve of that.
What do I keep saying? I generally approve of Trump's ends, he is pursuing them using terrible means. Well, I never did say he was a conservative, just that he was trying to make conservatives happy with him.
He's trying in a non-conservative manner, but any actual conservative President would be pursuing the same ends.
There's plenty of room at Gitmo for terrorists.
QED
Bellmore — You write:
You can deny that they're an "organization", adopting a loose cell organizational structure is meant to enable that claim, but they ARE terrorists.
Seems like you ought to at least notice that your show of concession in your opening clause deprives of any antecedent your subsequent use of, "they." You are pointing your finger at nobody. Maybe that works as agitprop. It goes off the rails as criminal-law advocacy.
Typical Lathropian failure of logic.
I have conceded that YOU can deny they're an organization. This doesn't imply that I have made this concession, and I'm the one pointing the finger.
At the organization that wants people to think it isn't one...
I mean, you're not pointing the finger.
You're just repeating Antifa like a mantra, with specifics about what's the upshot to this grand pronouncement.
with NO specifics, of course.
The upshot to this grand announcement is that the DOJ is going to be actively TRYING to unravel Antifa chains of command and funding sources, and prosecuting members who break laws as members of a criminal conspiracy, not isolated criminals.
Lots of confidence.
No soecifics.
Antifa is organized enough, and has a consistent enough brand, to produce a board game that glorifies their violent and destructive proclivities. Stab a fascist, violate federal computer laws, and deface local landmarks: what is there to object to?
Meme board games are the new RICO predicate, I hear.
"My question: What's the federal charge? Conspiracy? Sedition?"
Statutes? We ain't got no statutes! We don't need no statutes! I don't have to show you any stinking statutes!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VqomZQMZQCQ
The question was asked in good faith.
If an antifa member is 'caught in the act', there are a raft of available fed, state and local charges. If an antifa member supports others in the commission of crimes, there are a raft of available fed, state, and local charges.
Membership? I am less sure. Hence, my question.
Well, Antifa is typically deploying its violence in order to keep people from exercising their rights of assembly and petition, so 18 U.S. Code § 241 - Conspiracy against rights seems the appropriate charge.
"If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or
If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured—
They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death."
I think membership in an organization known to be engaged in such a conspiracy is sufficient here, because it is membership in the conspiracy.
You’re confusing a legitimate federal investigation and law enforcement with the democrats’ lawfare. And what is the phrase someone is fond of quoting? Oh yeah. Sunlight is the best disinfectant.
"FBI-Dir Patel has announced a robust effort to identify, disrupt and detain antifa members in the US, in response to the Kirk assassination."
This despite so far finding no link between Robinson and antifa.
I guess since he turned out to be cis it's getting hard to use him as a pretext to persecute trans people, so Patel will go after some different unrelated group instead.
Because I know immigration law is a topic that is dear to everyone's heart here, from the weekly summary of the UK Human Rights Blog:
The UK Government enforced its first deportations under its controversial “one-in-one-out” asylum-seeker agreement with France this week, despite an interim injunction on Wednesday temporarily blocking the removal of one Eritrean national. Home Office sources reported the deportation of asylum seekers of Indian, Iranian and Eritrean nationality under the scheme; one deportee’s challenge at the High Court on human rights grounds failed upon Mr Justice Sheldon’s finding that, as a fellow signatory of the European Convention, France would afford the applicant the same human rights protections as the UK. Earlier in the week, a 25-year-old Eritrean man had succeeded in being granted an interim injunction temporarily staying his removal to France, after it was argued that the applicant required more time to make representations on his claim to be a victim of modern slavery. The ruling had prompted the newly appointed Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood to accuse asylum seekers of making “vexatious, last-minute claims” that “make a mockery of this country’s generosity”, and to issue new guidance to the Home Office slavery assessment team. The UK-France Dangerous Journeys Agreement was presented to Parliament last month, and is set to run until June 2026. It provides for the forced return of individuals entering the UK illegally from France, in exchange for the same number of asylum seekers who do meet UK immigration rules. The first French arrivals under the ”exchange” are now set to enter the UK over the next week.
I wonder whether a UK judge would be so willing to assume that another signatory of the ECHR would afford the applicant the same human rights protections if that other signatory was, say, Turkey or Serbia.
It also strikes me that this entire policy ignores the fact that the asylum seeker might have personal reasons for applying for asylum in the UK rather than France that are relevant for the analysis. Most obviously, the asylum seeker might have family members already living in the UK such that his right to family life under art. 8 ECHR is engaged. Shipping him off to France to have his asylum claim assessed there might already interfere with his ECHR rights in a way that the French authorities would not be able to remedy even if they were willing.
"the asylum seeker might have personal reasons for applying for asylum in the UK rather than France"
Asylum is supposed to be for "anywhere is better than home" situations. If don't want to live in France because your family is in England you're a migrant.
Here's an interesting document: list of convictions for criminal insult in Japan, July 2022-June 2025. https://www.moj.go.jp/content/001446563.pdf
"Criminal insult" is a crime for insulting someone in public, with or without stating facts; the punishment was increased, from 10k yen fine or up to one month in jail, to up to one year in jail or 300k yen ($2,000) fine, in 2022. The document lists all sorts of derogatory remarks, made both online and in person; for example, no. 111 is for a person who shouted the F-word inside a bus and was fined 9,000 yen ($60).
Though some of the cases have questionable basis. People on Reddit talk about how posting negative reviews could get you in trouble - and there's one entry on the list, where someone who commented about the doctor allegedly lying to patient was fined 9,000 yen (no. 114).
I don't favour such laws, but this comment illustrates why Americans often misunderstand them. In other countries getting in trouble with the criminal justice system doesn't necessarily mean that the powers of the state are being used to destroy your life as you know it. Sometimes you just get a $60 fine and you go on with your day.
Insulting people in Portugal is also considered a serious crime.
Watching Face the Nation yesterday I discovered my customarily insular world view had deprived me of awareness of Emmanuel Macron. In an interview with Margaret Brennan what stood out for me was not Macron's substantive policy advocacy, although I tended to agree with it. It was Macron's talent to frame in English subtle political distinctions, using sentences arranged in complete, thought-out paragraphs. I doubt any American leader since Lincoln has matched that talent to use unscripted English which Frenchman Macron put on display.
Herr Starmtrooper strikes again: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ce800enrglzo "Sir Keir Starmer has announced the UK's recognition of a Palestinian state, in what represents a significant change in government policy." https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/3817734/hamas-calls-uk-recognition-of-palestine-a-victory/
"The terrorist organization Hamas, which led the attacks against Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, declared the United Kingdom’s decision on Sunday to recognize Palestinian statehood was a “victory” and “justice” for their cause. They also said it sent a “clear message” to Israel.
“These developments represent a victory for Palestinian rights and the justice of our cause, and send a clear message: no matter how far the occupation goes in its crimes, it will never be able to erase our national rights,” said Mahmud Mardawi, a senior Hamas official."
You realise that this merely makes the UK one of 151 of the 193 UN Member States to recognise Palestine, right? And that's not even counting France, which will formally recognise Palestine at the UNGA meeting this week. No need to get hysterical.
...and which government do they recognize; Hamas or the PNA?
They are recognizing the State of Palestine. You are conflating Hamas and the state as the same. Would be the same fallacy if you were to say that support for America is synonymous with supporting MAGA
States have one government at a time.
Do they? Sometimes they have no government, sometimes there are at least two entities with an arguable claim of being the lawful government.
They don't necessarily recognise any government.
Apart from Russia no government in the world currently recognises the Taliban government of Afghanistan. Don't ask me why. But every country in the world, as far as I know, recognises the state of Afghanistan.
You're conflating geography with government. Governments recognize other governments, not territory.
Maybe Israel should try genocide.
I thought your preferred final solution was a nuke?
It is rewarding terror.
A palestinian state next to Israel is not happening. Judea and Samaria will now be annexed in response.
And hamas will be defeated and expelled from gaza.
What you're describing definitely would be a reward for terror.
Correct....a palestinian state next to Israel isn't happening.
Watching the Charlie Kirk funeral, I concluded we are on the cusp of another Great Awakening.
What does this mean for Catholics and Jews?
Why would it mean anything for Catholics and Jews? Isn't the whole point of the far right to protect the Judeo-Christian way of life? So why would Jews and Christians have anything to worry about? Or are you suggesting that this whole Judeo-Christian BS is just a figleaf to cover up deep rooted antisemitism?
Why be an A-hole?
You're the one who asked the question. I was just trying to figure out WTF you were talking about.
Yesterday I posted about a man that had committed a drive by shooting of an ABC affiliate in Sacramento, California. He was arrested and almost immediately released on bail on state charges. The FBI has now arrested the perp and he is not bail eligible.
https://legalinsurrection.com/2025/09/abc10-shooting-suspect-freed-on-bail-back-in-custody-within-hours/
The man suspected of firing 3 shots into the window of an ABC affiliate in California after the Kimmel decision is a former teacher's union legislative director whose X feed is full of far-left rhetoric encouraging escalation. pic.twitter.com/rxwVi7cg4u
... and the man accused of attacking a wedding reception at a New Hampshire country club, killing one and injuring six others, reportedly yelled "free Palestine" during the attack.
https://kfor.com/news/man-charged-in-deadly-shooting-during-wedding-at-new-hampshire-country-club/
Trump is going to announce a major Autism breakthrough today.
Interesting: Basically two breakthroughs in one:
1. It looks like, in susceptible children, prenatal tylenol can cause autism. This, and not just diagnostic changes, might be why it's become so much more common.
2. A possible drug to treat symptoms, and by drug, I mean a common supplement, calcium folinate.
Of course, this is all rather preliminary.
A caution, of course, is that "autism" is defined by a VERY loose collection of symptoms, which were formerly recognized as distinct syndromes, and just got swept together for convenience. "Autism" is probably composed of multiple problems with multiple causes.
Will the guidance be to take calcium folate with acetaminophen?
1. I'll be interested if they point to any actual science, NIH has been utterly compromised in it's analyses and recommendations.
2. The drug is a a cancer and anemia drug, with a single clinical trial touted in the Daily Mail. 14 patients, only 12 were fully monitored https://emergentdivergence.com/2025/02/19/why-leucovorin-is-not-a-breakthrough-treatment-for-autism/
The guy pushing Leucovorin for autism (Frye) works closely and repeatedly with the guy who pushed heavy metal chelation for autism (Rossignol), a practice that has actually killed children.
At least it's not antivaxx shit.
"1. I'll be interested if they point to any actual science, NIH has been utterly compromised in it's analyses and recommendations."
For a lot longer than you care to recognize...
"2. The drug is a a cancer and anemia drug, "
The chemical, the calcium salt of B-9, is a normal dietary constituent available as an OTC nutritional supplement, which happens to have use in ameliorating some side effects of chemo drugs, and is used in treating anemia because anemia can result from a deficiency of it. You might as well declare green leafy vegetables to be a chemo drug.
It's actually pretty common for dietary supplements to be prescribed with actual drugs to relieve side effects. For instance, if you're on statins you're advised to take Co-Q10.
Yes, this is all very preliminary, as I said myself, and even if it works, it's likely to only work in a limited subset of 'autism' cases, because, again, 'autism' is a grab bag diagnosis.
Yeah, I know you don’t know what scientific integrity means because you see leftists everywhere.
The White House shouldn’t be touting very preliminary anything to the public as a cure.
This is actually an ironic case for you to be yelling about scientific integrity, because folate was involved in one of the government's more scandalous violations of scientific integrity.
Spinal bifida can be almost entirely prevented by maintaining proper folate levels during pregnancy, and the NIH has for decades recommended that any woman who has any possiblity of becoming pregnant make sure of getting enough of it, because the window during which this happens is before the woman would be aware she was pregnant.
OTOH, they set the minimum consumption at roughly half the amount the science determined was enough to reliably prevent spinal bifida...
For most of that time the FDA was labeling as "fraudulent" any claims by supplement manufacturers that folic acid helped prevent spinal bifida. Because their only definition of "fraudulent" was, "We didn't give you permission to say that!".
That's the same reasoning that got Cheerios classified as a drug.
"Vitamin C is good for you" – vague health claim that needs to be backed by at least one scientific study "Vitamin C prevents scurvy" – specific health claim that needs FDA approval (unless it's a grandfathered pre-FDA drug like aspirin)
Ohio Democratic party kicked out of county fair for displaying buttons that say "8647" and "is he dead yet."
https://redstate.com/bobhoge/2025/09/21/ohio-dems-booted-from-family-friendly-county-fair-for-shilling-86-47-buttons-other-hateful-merch-n2194194
A little FJB on the part of dems. I take it you're supportive?
So fuck Joe Biden is comparable to wishing the current POTUS dead?
Well, if we're suddenly being ultra literal, then I would say that threatening to rape Biden anally is equally bad.
Somebody needs to be sued for violating the First Amendment.
Would be an interesting lawsuit for the Democrats to file. "Yes your honor , we claim the right to wish death upon people we don't like is protected by the 1st Amendment. And Republicans need to take it down a couple of notches."
"Eighty-six is slang meaning "to throw out," "to get rid of," or "to refuse service to." It comes from 1930s soda-counter slang meaning that an item was sold out. There is varying anecdotal evidence about why the term eighty-six was used, but the most common theory is that it is rhyming slang for nix."
https://www.merriam-webster.com/wordplay/eighty-six-meaning-origin
Is the Ashland County Fair run by the government?
So the FCC won't let me be Or let me be me, so let me see Lets go and shut it down, the agency.
"In a turn of events, Democrats embrace free speech and join with republicans to eliminate the very unnecessary FCC."
--news you'll never see.
Sure, Republicans in power are terrible on free speech (whats new), but the Dems just look like hypocrites embracing it.
What, exactly, have Democrats done that is comparable to what the current Regime does?
"Sure, Republicans in power are terrible on free speech (whats new), but."
Lotsa that going around.
Sure, the Republicans in power are terrible on free speech, but they're better than the alternative.
It is what it is.
FCC (or another radio regulator) is definitely necessary. There are good alternatives - such as making them actually independent of the President (through constitutional amendments), or at least requiring 5-0 vote before they can revoke a license for non-technical reasons.
Maybe the FCC was needed when airwaves were scarce and there were 3 color channels and 2 UHF channels full of reruns. Now, with broadband and chooser streaming platforms, the FCC has no relevance.
Airwaves are still scarce. Broadcast is not cable.
EVERYTHING is scarce, at some level. Might as well have the government nationalize and regulate the use of paper, because there are only so many trees.
No, the broadcast spectrum is not like paper.
You have opinions about so many things you clearly know nothing about.
They're both economically scarce resources. As is cable. And especially cable networks.
Ugh, the first sentence is quoting Sarcastro. Don't want anyone to think I would say something like that!
....well, up until very very recently, it wasn't thought necessary to get a constitutional amendment to ensure the FCC was at least somewhat independent of the President.
However, we've had the wonderful perfect storm of stupid conservative jurisprudential theory being enacted ... just in time for Trump's second term, with Trump's second term.
See, here's the thing about about the way the law evolves. It did so for a reason. Small "c" conservatives understand that you need to be really careful when re-examining what came before, because there might have been a good reason for having it there.
...as we are quickly learning.
" or at least requiring 5-0 vote before they can revoke a license for non-technical reasons."
Hopefully the court will fix the error they made in Red Lion and recognize we can't allocate spectrum based on content any more than the government can regulate paper based on what people print on it.
Now that President Trump is openly firing prosecutors who refuse to indict political opponents and critics on trumped-up charges along with a long list of other punlic officials who refuse to go along with lies such as doctors and scientists who refuse to put their names behind quackery, I think the public needs to think about stepping in and helping. Some provision needs to be made both to support the families of people committed to truth and constitutional order.
In addition I think courts need to deal with any new prosecutors - and I think it’s inevitable Trump will find some and the Senate will confirm them - willing to press bogus charges.
I think courts need to come down very hard on prosecutors who press charges that have no probable cause or basis in fact against critics of the regime who were made subjects of investigation solely because they were critics. I think lawyers who put their names behind such damagingly frivolous charges need, among other sanctions, to be barred from practicing before federal courts for a very long time, if not for life, and it needs to be made clear to them that they will need to expect to find some other line of work. The courts need to send a very, very clear message that this will not be tolerated. Victims of this sort of lawfare persecution need to press for sanctions very, very aggressively. The courts need to purse avenues, such as civil sancitions, that lie outside the President’s pardon power.
I realize some folks will deflect — “what about X case” or “courts are political too.” But the core point isn’t partisan: indictments need probable cause, period. At minimum there needs to be a clear perception of probable cause — and an honest acknowledgement when evidence weakens it. Otherwise the whole system just looks rigged.
He is not firing anyone who refuses to target political opponents. You’re confusing this administration with the Biden administration. I’m sure you were quite the profile in courage denouncing that.
President Trump is the chief magistrate. He controls the executive branch, not one or even many federal prosecutors. If these prosecutors are letting politics influence their decisions or otherwise not performing their duties consistently with the policies of the one party who is constitutionally in charge, the prosecutors should be fired.
I read an article over the weekend that I think had an interesting take on it, that I largely agreed with.
Basically it's this- Trump's approval ratings are getting worse. This isn't shocking. I think most people have a strong suspicion that they will get much worse (with a floor of true believers)- if you know much about economics, you know about lag effects, and what we are seeing happening is just the beginning, and will likely continue to worsen (and if there is a big shock, look out).
Anyway, the point of the article is that Trump is in a race to consolidate power before things get too bad. Because on the one hand, you have the people that are true believers- that will support what he wants no matter what. But even among his sycophants, a lot of them are just in it for the money. They will go along with the unlawful, the illegal, and the corrupt - so long as they believe Trump will maintain power.
But they also know that they don't want to be left holding the bag if Trump doesn't maintain power. That's the position that someone like Bondi is in. At this point, Trump isn't even being subtle about the corruption and lawbreaking- he's literally telling Bondi to get people in to prosecute his enemies, after the people he already installed told him there was no evidence.
So it's a simple race- will he get the power before the defections become too much, or not?
Unfortunately, I am not confident in our civil institutions.
Saw that.
In the Atlantic.
By David Frum!!
Yeah, David Frum is something like Case zero for TDS...
"Basically it's this- Trump's approval ratings are getting worse."
President Trump Job Approval
In reality, Trump's approval rating has remained in the range of 45-48% since mid March, and a very narrow range from 45.2-46.3 since July. Rather than "getting worse", it's remarkably consistent.
Care to share a link to the article?
I would strike "openly". The termination of Comey was out in the open.
Reports appear to confirm Mr. Homan accepted a bag of cash — but they don’t say whether he actually kept it, or if agents recovered it on the spot. And if he did keep it, was it declared as income and taxed? Any insight on that?
That gap in the reporting is just as important as DOJ’s “no quid pro quo” rationale.
Fun NFL Sunday with a special nod to special teams.
Somewhat less fun for Jets and Giants fans.
TCM aired the Bill Murray comedy Quick Change last night. I think it is fittingly counted as a "classic."
To my Fellow Tribe Members: L'shana Tovah tikateivu v'teichateimu
(May you be inscribed and sealed for a good year); 5786.
And what a year (5785) it was. Lebanon was bitch-slapped. Hezbollah utterly defeated. Syria defeated, Assad deposed. Iran, defanged and emasculated. Yemen was bitch-slapped. And gaza will soon be free of hamas.
Shortly, Judea and Samaria will be annexed. And then we will say: From the river to the sea, Israel is now free.
Here in America, a more mixed picture. Antisemitism is very much alive and well, and actively practiced by the Left (see college campus demonstrations); in the halls of Congress, and the streets of our major cities.
A year or so ago I linked to Molly Ringwald's essay on how her children shouldn't see her 1980s movie appearances which are not politically correct by 21st century standards.
Here's a story on prosecutors getting in trouble for quoting from Sixteen Candles.
In some of the emails, O’Sullivan and Bradley compared Choy’s nephew to Long Duk Dong, a character in the movie “Sixteen Candles” who is the subject of ridicule. Bradley and O’Sullivan said those emails were attempts at humor and not motivated by racial bias.
A judge granted a new trial when the emails came to light several years ago. A bar discipline committee recommended that both lawyers be suspended.
I think the email exchange was fifteen years ago. Motions for new trials move at a glacial pace. In a first degree murder case in Massachusetts an appeal from the first motion for a new trial is often combined with the direct appeal from conviction, reaching the Supreme Judicial Court five years or so after the conviction. The appeals are almost always unsuccessful, so why rush?
https://www.bostonglobe.com/2025/09/20/metro/racist-emails-prosecutors/ https://www.bc.edu/bc-web/sites/bc-magazine/winter-2021/features/freedom-fighters.html
Wrinkle I hadn’t seen before — and the optics are interesting. Cantor Fitzgerald was/is making offers to buy up companies’ rights to possible tariff refunds, paying them a fraction now in exchange for whatever they might get back later if the courts rule the tariffs invalid. Basically a way to turn refund uncertainty into upfront liquidity. Worth a read: https://www.ainvest.com/news/cantor-fitzgerald-offers-20-30-trump-tariff-refund-rights-2507/
Apparently this has been out for a while — I just hadn’t come across it until now.
When Silicon Valley Bank collapsed investors were buying accounts at a discount. Your startup has $10 million in the bank. You can't get to it. Do you sell it to the vultures for $7 million or do you hang on and hope for a government bailout?
How come no one yet has been able to identify the Phillies Karen?
Please log in to post comments
Mute this user?
Ban this user?
Un-ban this user?
Nuke this user?
Un-nuke this user?
Flag this comment?
Un-flag this comment?
J.D. Tuccille | 9.22.2025 7:00 AM
Matthew Petti | 9.22.2025 7:00 AM
Bekah Congdon | From the October 2025 issue
Charles Oliver | 9.22.2025 4:00 AM
Jacob Sullum | 9.21.2025 5:20 PM
