Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Politics
Eugene Volokh | 9.29.2025 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: Today in Supreme Court History: September 28, 1787
Hide Comments (144)
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.
Another day another massacre by a nutjob probably influenced by leftoids. This time ironically of illegals in Dallas as he was trying to murder ICE officers.
Progs must really be praying to Stalin hard for a dyed in the wool MAGA mass shooter targeting liberals as soon as possible. Gotta start evening things up a little before it gets too embarrassing.
Hey maybe just suspend another failing hack late show again that they were looking for an excuse to cancel anyway. Lets say a week per death so 3 weeks. Thats should square things away again.
Of course they're claiming its a false flag because its so unbelievable that calling a group 'Nazis' for decades would ever have any effect. And its already fading from the news. Guess we'll just have to wait for the laws of probability to produce a more politically convenient shooting with the right groups behind and in front of the trigger or at least the appearance of such to be manufactured for wall to wall coverage.
Are you talking about Michigan, North Carolina or something else
I haven't seen any evidence either the MI or NC shootings were politically motivated, and it seems the NC shootings were not. That shooter was schizophrenic, and also had a combat brain injury.
Like I said. Dallas...ICE..... See its already being forgotten.
week per victim...some have survived it appears
What's wrong with you? Have you fried out your brain with too much Kool-aid?
“probably influenced by leftoids”
What a sad attempt to shut down speech.
The genocide of Jews has expanded to include Christians.
“Gendron is reported to have written a manifesto describing himself as an ethno-nationalist and a supporter of white supremacy who is motivated to commit acts of political violence. He voiced support for the far-right Great Replacement conspiracy theory in the context of a white genocide.”
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Buffalo_shooting
“Public records indicate that Roley lived in California and later in Phoenix, Arizona before relocating to Idaho.[44] Former classmates at North Phoenix Preparatory Academy told USA TODAY that he was “obsessed with guns” and frequently discussed politics, voicing strong support for Donald Trump; several also said he drew swastikas and firearms in notebooks, which they viewed as attempts to appear “edgy.”[45]” https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_Coeur_d%27Alene_shooting
In last Wednesday's open thread I pointed out a report that Portland Antifa had tried to burn down a federal building and tried to trap ICE agents inside.
I also suggested it was time to federalize and call out the Oregon National Guard.
"That's worse than what ICE was facing in LA, and worse collusion by local authorities.
I think we need the Oregon National guard, I'd use units from Eastern Oregon."
No word yet if they are using the Greater Idaho units of the guard.
https://reason.com/volokh/2025/09/24/wednesday-open-thread-35/?comments=true#comment-11219879
I'm sure there will be a quick injunction and appeal, however since an appeals panel the 9th Circuit ruled 3-0 allowing Trump to use the guard, and there really isn't a material difference in the facts, I don't think the injunction will last long before its stayed, if one is issued.
Yeah, still totally normal for the Regime to send armed forces into the three biggest opposition-controlled cities of the country and, for symbolic reasons, Portland. Nothing to be worried about at all...
This time, shoot them (meaning, shoot violent antifa rioters who come to attack fed bldgs) with rubber bullets. After a few encounters, antifa will stop.
Sure, shoot people who demonstrate against the Regime. That's a totally non-fascist thing to suggest. Nothing to see here, carry on everyone.
eurotrash...demonstrate =/= violent antifa rioters
I think we can all agree that "riot" is a term of art in Trump land, meaning "demonstration by people we don't agree with". But sure, go ahead and deny it.
We don't agree, eurotrash. There is a qualitative difference between a demonstration (A-Ok), and violent rioter (shoot them).
Yes. The difficulty is that your fever dreams prevent you from seeing which is which.
eurotrash, not difficult at all. Watch what they do.
You mean whether they voice support for the Great Leader or not? Whether they bring Nazi salutes or not?
Don't worry, we know what you are.
No, duffus, whether they set stuff on fire or not.
You've been very broad as to who counts as a rioter in the past, Brett.
Protesting in a place where something is set on fire hours later that night still counts in your book, remember?
You accused me of defending criminals when I pointed out you were full of it.
Sarcastr0, you are absurdly reluctant to admit a riot is happening, when cars are being set on fire, stores looted, and people being assaulted on a mass scale.
Sure, you might have a protest during the day, but if it keeps turning into a riot every evening, then the people who don't leave before evening are there for the riot.
You act like I didn't think there were riots in 2020.
But the main thrust of your comment is you once again demonstrating how into guilt by tenuous association you are, when it's the left.
What a terrible libertarian you are.
And what a hateful humanitarian you are.
Still totally not a fascist country:
In addition (or alternatively), everyone in attendance may be required to sign a loyalty oath to President Trump on the spot, or required to take an oral oath to the same effect. In such a case, it seems plausible that those who refuse will be summarily relieved of their positions. (...) Discuss the announced event in detail with counsel, including whether an order to sign a loyalty oath or take an oral one is lawful. Unless you are entirely sure of where your values and interests lie, it may be that the best course of action is to sign nothing, and say nothing, especially until you have consulted competent counsel.
https://www.justsecurity.org/121421/hegseth-meeting-sign-nothing/
Given that such a loyalty oath would have no legal effect whatsoever, I would be tempted to just sign it. Then again, why would you want to serve in the armed forces of a fascist Regime? Presumably that's not what these people signed up for.
Read the article and it is pure speculation by the author who obviously knows nothing.
The mere fact that someone knowledgeable is worried about this speaks volumes about the fascist hellscape the US has become.
US is a fascist hellscape....LMAO!
eurotrash, you're funny.
Explaining fascism to you is like explaining water to a fish. You're so far in it that you can't even tell what "not fascism" looks like.
And what knowledge does he actually have? He has no idea what it is about and even speculates without evidence that martial law might be declared.
Are you confident that indeed there will be no loyalty oath required? If Hegseth does ask for one, will you condemn it?
There will be no loyalty oath (other than to uphold the Constitution), and if a loyalty oath to POTUS Trump or SecDef Hegseth were required, of course I would oppose and condemn it.
Interesting comparison of average home size SQFT of US states and European countries.
at first glance it looks like they are using different scales for US and Europe, but if you look closer you see that NY the state with the smallest avg home size is about the same color as Denmark the European country with the largest jome size.
Looks like avg home size in Europe is about 1000sqft vs about 2000sqft in US.
https://x.com/razibkhan/status/1972375601710510229?t=6I2oYJvd83RPJ06044rCxA&s=19
Yes, and I haven't owned a car once in my adult life, because I haven't needed to. It all depends on what you think is important.
Then again, it might be this:
Poorest US state rivals Germany: GDP per capita in US and Europe
Europe is just poorer than the US.
The counter argument: Greener On The Other Side?
"There’s more to the question of life quality, however, than who has more money to spend; there’s the question of what you get for it. Bismark Analysis’s Marko Jukic offered an unconventional rejoinder to the conventional money answer in April. Jukic argued on X: “Europeans aren’t poor. They are illiquid. Much of Europe’s wealth is stored in safe streets, nice parks, public transit, ‘free’ healthcare, etc. which, it turns out, are too socially expensive for Americans to maintain. Americans take the money instead.” Jukic’s post, expanded upon in a Palladium essay, contends that Europeans aren’t worse off; they’ve invested in public goods, while Americans have pocketed cash."
The bottom line seems to be,
1. Total economic performance is substantially higher in the US, so we just have more total wealth to work with. 2. People get to keep more of their income in the US to spend on what they personally want. 3. Public goods like mass transit are better in Europe. 4. But this isn't due to Europe spending more on them, instead Europeans are getting more for their taxes.
You know, this might explain WHY Americans prefer to keep their money to spend ourselves, rather than letting government have it: Our governments tend to waste the money!
My own diagnosis is that Europe has a number of advantages over the US:
1. WWII "reset" your governments, like rebooting a computer, while ours is long overdue to be rebooted. 2. In Europe, governmental practice, perhaps as a result of #1, is more closely hewing to (Rather looser!) constitutional constraints. There's a certain unavoidable amount of corruption in government when the government is systematically violating its own constitution, regardless of how you rationalize violating it. 3. In a number of areas we were the first adopter, and Europe got to learn from our mistakes. 4. Having been settled longer, Europe is less in flux, and flux does have downsides.
None the less, the higher American growth rate has a cumulative effect over time, so I don't expect that total wealth differential to shrink. If we can solve the problem of governmental inefficiency, we'll pull way ahead.
Money vanishes quickly when society collapses. Our superior culture has persisted over centuries.
Your "superior culture" keeps needing the US to come and save it.
The Roman empire also relied on lots of auxiliaries for its armies. Barbarians who like fighting have their uses.
Well, lets look at the 20th Century -- WWI, WWII, Cold War...
But for the US bailing you out, you wouldn't have a culture.
martin - such a superior culture that you invited the immigration of a culture that wants to destroy your culture.
The Great Replacement Theory is an excellent example of the inferiority of the US. The only problem is that such American problems have a way of coming across the Atlantic to Europe.
Not having to spend a significant amount of your GDP on Defense helps.
Brett, re: governmental inefficiency.
I think we'll get a chance to reduce federal gov't inefficiency quite dramatically after tomorrow. We'll have 10s of thousands fewer non-essential bureaucrats on the federal rolls. They will be fired in a gov't shutdown. They won't come back.
Hopefully they won't come back...
Wait, we are long overdue for a WW2 style rebooting?
No, I'm not suggesting we need a war to beat us down. I'm just saying that having the apple cart overturned once in a while lets you shed some of the parasite load, and reset everything to factory spec. To mix metaphors.
Start with the fact that we're running a modern mega-state on top of an 18th century deliberately power limited constitution for a federation of sovereign states. This has required systematically defeating important features of our Constitution, only without actually repealing them.
And, as I've observed before, interpreting a limited power constitution to authorize exactly the scale of government it was intended to prevent is NOT the same as actually replacing it with a constitution that would authorize that scale of government. It requires staffing the government with people who are comfortable with that sort of rationalization and systematic dishonesty.
People like you, bluntly.
Those sort of people don't keep the sophistry closely cabined to what's strictly necessary to pretend the Constitution authorizes this scale of government. You simply can't have honest government run by people willing to run the current US government while swearing to uphold the current US constitution!
In Europe, the scale of government, while too big for my tastes, is commensurate with the scale of government actually constitutionally authorized, which means you can staff the government with honest people. Doesn't guarantee it will be so staffed, but it's at least POSSIBLE.
Or look at some of the legal work-arounds we have in place. The Constitution contemplates state legislatures picking trusted people who will get together and agree among themselves on who should be President. THAT is the Presidential 'election' system the Constitution actually puts in place. about as far from democratic as you could get without instituting trial by combat.
On top of it we have a Rube Goldberg mechanism for turning this into a very rough approximation of a popularly elected President.
But the original constitutional structure is still there, still what the highest law of the land mandates, so the result is a real mess.
Our government is just LOUSY with those sorts of Rube Goldberg mechanisms, in place of actually changing that highest law of the land. And to the extent they work, it's very badly.
I happen to largely LIKE the original Constitution that still lurks under all those extra-constitutional work arounds. Not all of it, but it was very well designed in many respects for what it set out to do.
It's not well designed at all for what we're doing today.
That's why I think we need to have a national debate about what kind of country we want to be, and hold a constitutional convention to craft a constitution that's fit for such a country.
And then hang the first judge who tries to interpret it to mean anything other than what it clearly says from the nearest lamp post.
I'm sure I wouldn't much like such a constitution, frankly. A lot of constitutional features I LIKE probably would not survive, a lot of innovations I'd purely hate would appear.
But we'd at least have a shot at honest government if we did that.
shed some of the parasite load You're allowed to say we could use reform without sounding like you want to kill a lot of people.
systematic dishonesty And without accusing a lot of people you disagree with of bad faith.
A great way to assure no one will work with you is the poison the well with psycho shit like you. But you're not here to actually reform. You are, in the end, a utopian. With all the dangerous utopia-justifies-the-means that entails.
You're allowed to read what I write without hearing that I want to kill a lot of people, too. I can only control what I write, not what you read.
"And without accusing a lot of people you disagree with of bad faith."
It is frankly all but impossible to read the US constitution and look at the present federal government, and not see bad faith.
Maybe don't talk about WW2 resets, parasites, and insist you're the only one who can have any legitimate ideas on how our government is designed.
Frankly, you're terrible at understanding anyone's point of view other than your own. So you call them all liars.
I disagree mightily with you; I don't think you're lying. See how easy it is?
So, you're talking about the "reset" mentality. And there is something to it. Large conflicts can allow for "resetting" of systems that are difficult to change otherwise.
A good analogy is the company analogy. Companies can accumulate a lot of practices, cultures, procedures, individuals even that act as a "drag force". But those companies are allowed to go bankrupt, and new companies that don't have the historical drag can arise. Sometimes you can get a reform package in, but often you need a full reset.
The US has had a few of these resets/reforms. 1790, 1865, and arguably 1932.
1-year risks of cancers associated with COVID-19 vaccination: a large population-based cohort study in South Korea
"Abstract: The oncogenic potential of SARS-CoV-2 has been hypothetically proposed, but real-world data on COVID-19 infection and vaccination are insufficient. Therefore, this large-scale population-based retrospective study in Seoul, South Korea, aimed to estimate the cumulative incidences and subsequent risks of overall cancers 1 year after COVID-19 vaccination. Data from 8,407,849 individuals between 2021 and 2023 were obtained from the Korean National Health Insurance database. The participants were categorized into two groups based on their COVID-19 vaccination status. The risks for overall cancer were assessed using multivariable Cox proportional hazards models, and data were expressed as hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The HRs of thyroid (HR, 1.351; 95% CI, 1.206–1.514), gastric (HR, 1.335; 95% CI, 1.130–1.576), colorectal (HR, 1.283; 95% CI, 1.122–1.468), lung (HR, 1.533; 95% CI, 1.254–1.874), breast (HR, 1.197; 95% CI, 1.069–1.340), and prostate (HR, 1.687; 95% CI, 1.348–2.111) cancers significantly increased at 1 year post-vaccination. In terms of vaccine type, cDNA vaccines were associated with the increased risks of thyroid, gastric, colorectal, lung, and prostate cancers; mRNA vaccines were linked to the increased risks of thyroid, colorectal, lung, and breast cancers; and heterologous vaccination was related to the increased risks of thyroid and breast cancers. Given the observed associations between COVID-19 vaccination and cancer incidence by age, sex, and vaccine type, further research is needed to determine whether specific vaccination strategies may be optimal for populations in need of COVID-19 vaccination."
And an attack on it:
Here we go again: Another study is being misrepresented as evidence that COVID vaccines cause cancer
I'd say that he jumped rather quickly from "Here are some factors that could explain these results" to "This is all rank nonsense", except that that would reverse the order things happened in.
My own opinion? Enough there to justify further research. And, that's about it.
Yes, there is enough of a question here that it merits further exploration. The data do not lie.
No, but conspiracy theorists on the internet lie.
Have you booked your Medbed yet? https://edition.cnn.com/2025/09/28/politics/trump-ai-medbed-conspiracy-theory
“ Enough there to justify further research. And, that's about it.”
Well, thanks for posting this not yet useful info then!
Only final results are useful?
From a public health perspective, do you not see how posting this paper is more prejudicial than probative?
I see how you want to shut down lines of inquiry that might lead places you don't want to go.
A line of inquiry you yourself declaimed.
I'm not saying the government should swoop down and roll you into a van. I'm saying it's irresponsible to push antivaxx shit without a sufficient scientific predicate, and you and I agree this ain't that.
Presumably he wants to shut down discussion about this paper and its findings, rather than allow people to do science.
Brett and I agree on the paper's findings.
Everyone with introductory statistics training knows correlation is not causation. And as usual, too many forget that really means something.
Which is why, "More study is needed," is the predictable outcome of correlation studies, which by design had zero chance to show causation. By, "zero," I do not mean zero figuratively. I mean for correlation studies, exactly zero, all the time.
How can anyone be so certain? The certainty is defined in, by the nature of a correlation study, but afterwards obscured from the statistically naive by so-called confidence intervals. Confidence intervals do not measure anything about causation. They measure the capacity of particular statistical methods to confirm whether measurable outcomes from different data categories vary independently, or not. That is a style of variance generally unrelated to causation.
But crucially, even entire unsampled data sets, with perfect correlation outcomes of, 1.0, or –1.0, are incapable to show causation in the least, unless other conditions necessary to establish causation can be shown. For instance, the conditions of which data are antecedents, and which data are subsequents, and whether those are always found in the same categories.
Causal influence never flows backward, from subsequents toward antecedents. By definition, correlation studies define data relationships without regard to time-directional flow of causal influence. In merely correlated outcomes, the directions of influence remain mysterious.
Thus, correlation provides a way to assemble and make use of comparisons among data categories for which causal influences were not observed when the data were recorded—a commonplace occurrence. Typically, not observed because specific causal relationships between those data categories were not of interest to the data compilers, or remained unknown. The data are being rummaged later, to point toward other methods to turn up those missing causes, not to prove them.
The hope is that correlation outcomes will thus become clues—clues which point the way to identify which kinds of influences might properly become focal points of later studies. A correlation study is thus a way to say, "Make it a point to notice." And emphatically not a way to say, or imply, "This causes that."
To define causation is a harder problem than to define correlation. Researchers will always find more correlations than causes.
"Everyone with introductory statistics training knows correlation is not causation."
Sure, obviously. But, famously, "Correlation doesn't imply causation, but it does waggle its eyebrows suggestively and gesture furtively while mouthing 'look over there'."
Maybe we'll just find, as my second link suggests, (But in no way established!) that the same people who would go out and get vaccinated would also get tested and find the relevant cancers at a higher rate than others. Or maybe not, because the percentage getting vaccinated was SO high, that expecting that sort of systematic difference between the vaccinated and the general population seems questionable.
Or maybe something about the Covid spike protein, (Which the vaccine produces!) messes with the immune system, allowing existing cancers to grow unchecked.
We won't know until we look harder, but you can't look if you don't have some indication you NEED to look, and that's where studies like this shine. At telling you where you should look.
Brett:
Single study confirms priors: “This study raises important questions about whether my priors are correct!”
Numerous studies go against priors: “We should be very careful about accepting this conclusion!”
Can I please hear MAGA's explanation why Hegseth's mass conclave of generals and admirals at Quantico is a good idea. There are so many ways it looks ominous that forthright critique ought to go out of its way to recruit favorable explanations.
They all need to swear personal loyalty to the Great Leader. What other reason could there be?
The Commander in Chief of the armed forces has issued a number of orders that were entirely within his authority, and at least some of the military brass have violated those orders.
They're being brought together so that those generals can be fired in front of the others, to remind them all that they're not the Commander in Chief, Trump is.
SAD
least some of the military brass have violated those orders
Fuck yeah military purge based on Brett's vibes! Gotta make sure everyone's loyal to MAGA before deploying the military to yet more blue enclaves.
Nothing in that has echoes of past fascism at all!
[I don't think we have any idea what this is, but it sure says a lot that's what Brett's wishcasting it to be!]
"The Commander in Chief of the armed forces has issued a number of orders that were entirely within his authority, and at least some of the military brass have violated those orders."
Could you give a couple of specific examples?
Restoring America’s Fighting Force
Word is, some of the generals just renamed their DEI initiatives, instead of terminating them.
Word is?
Again expecting an extensively documented paper in a blog comment.
Yeah, that's the rumor in right-wing circles, that some of the generals were violating an order by the CiC to terminate DEI programs. Really, I know no more than you do, I expect we'll find out after the fact.
A specific example would look like "Admiral Jones was ordered to XXXX and the evidence he refused is YYYY".
Imagine, for example, the kind of evidence you would want to see if Obama cashiered a general for cause - the kind of evidence that would make you go "Yep, Gen. Smith needed to be fired for refusing that order".
Procurement - the revolving door of retired generals to defense contractors; DEI - a total distraction and waste of money;
and this:
"[Pete Hegseth is] also not going to tolerate retired admirals and generals that come out of the woodwork during election season, use their rank—they’re still subject to Article 88 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which is enforced against lower-ranking officers. The statute says that retired or serving flag officers shall not disparage major civilian officials in the executive branch; Cabinet officers, vice president, especially the president.
And yet we’ve seen in these recent news cycles, I won’t mention all of the generals’ names, but they’ve called their commander in chief a fascist, a Nazi-like, a Mussolini character, an architect of Auschwitz, a liar, a cheat, who should be removed sooner—just terrible things, with impunity."
Read the whole thing: https://www.dailysignal.com/2025/02/20/pete-hegseths-military/
That's an opinion piece by Victor Davis Hanson.
With some quick Googling, I couldn't find any examples of current generals calling Trump any of the names he listed.
I checked whether retired military are still subject to the UCMJ, and by gum they are (if entitled to retirement pay).
That seems like a really bad policy. I'm surprised it passes 1A muster.
Is anyone aware of any past prosecutions for retired military folks criticizing the government? I have surely heard a lot of quite pointed criticism of past governments by retired service people, but can't recall any prosecutions.
Apparently there is some debate on the issue (n.b. cases on non-speech crimes).
The hook seems to be that folks who served between 20 and 30 years are getting paid partly on the basis of being recalled in the event of war, up until age 65[1], and so are quasi-on-duty. It implies that people who serve 30 years might not be subject to recall??
Still seems like bad policy. If some president is doing dumb military things, I surely want to hear from the SME's.
[1]Heh. My Dad was one of them. Every few years he'd get a letter telling him that in the event the nuclear apocalypse happened and he didn't hear anything, he was to make his way to Fort XXX, which was a thousand miles from where we lived. He'd joke about pushing a grocery cart the thousand miles through the irradiated wasteland.
Not to say you don't get called back, e.g. the Korean War. The funny part was the 'if things are destroyed so badly we can't get a message to you, start walking' angle.
The Trump administration says it is working to provide tens of billions of dollars to Argentina's President Javier Milei, in a financial bailout that many critics say clashes with President Donald Trump's “America First” platform.
On Wednesday, U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent confirmed the United States is in talks to provide $20 billion to Milei. The announcement comes months after the Trump administration dismantled the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) in an effort to instead support programs aligned with Trump's "America First" agenda.
https://www.newsweek.com/trump-admins-20-billion-bail-out-for-argentinas-milei-raises-eyebrows-10780604
Three reasons Trump is sending Milei our money:
1. Milei is a climate skeptic who has rolled back a lot of environmental protections.
2. Milei is anti-health. Like Trump, he withdrew Argentina from the WHO
3. Milei is anti-woman and LGBT. He's rolled back protections for both groups and has repeatedly denigrated both.
So he's basically a latin Trump
True libertarianism has never been tried!
"2. Milei is anti-health. Like Trump, he withdrew Argentina from the WHO"
This is cynical bullshit. Let me ask you, if I decide the NRA is corrupt and in many cases working against my interests, and I quit the NRA, does that make me anti-gun?
This anti-health, anti-woman, anti-LGBT stuff from the left just means you won't toe their line and keep your mouth shut and your wallet open.
The WHO sucks.
I don’t know what Milie is, but it strikes me as fishy that Trump would cut so much foreign aid and then give 20 billion to his sycophantic buddy.
When Trump so dramatically cut foreign aid, he was cutting off funding to NGO's mostly through USAID, who often work against US interests, and are steeped in corruption. Direct aid is something altogether different.
I don't recall you objecting to the billions Biden gave to Zelenskyy in "aid," especially since few can account for where all that money went.
It’s a little different to give money to an invaded ally in defense of an attack that could be thought to be the precursor to one on a treaty ally and giving money to propping up a sycophant buddy, no?
USAID is a cesspool / slushfund for leftwing advocates, only a small percentage of outlays is actually spend on program services.
Cite?
And I’m not just talking about USAID.
Also, what “service” is Milie performing?
Don't strongmen and war criminals typically use Argentina to retire in and avoid trials?
Lol
And we're 2 days away from the Democrat government shutdown.
https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/5524565-democrats-government-shutdown-trump/
The math here is simple. The GOP wanted a simple continuing resolution, to fund the government at current levels for 7 weeks, while further negotiations could take place.
Democrats are mad. For the first time I can remember, they've fillibustered a CR. They want a shutdown. They want a fight. They want more than a trillion in new spending as their condition to keep the government open. It's absurd.
The GOP is the rational party here. The Democrats are insane.
More disingenuousness here, you *like* shutdowns.
I'd like to hear Ted Cruz's contemporary thoughts on government shutdown
You appear to be assigning motives that are incorrect.
No, I’m not. Show us where you’ve condemned shutdowns in the past.
All the previous republican-caused shutdowns were deemed justified because they were just seeking reductions in government spending. So couldn't the libs curry support from MAGA by adopting the same? They could demand reductions in Argentina spending, military command transport, Vance's huge secret service vacation entourages and river swellings...
It would be nice imho but it’s a tack the Dems don’t take much.
You got made fun of twice now, and here you are back again.
The shutdown is good, and also is the Dem's fault, and also lets not talk about what the spending discussions are about, and also Trump cancelled all the meetings with Dems but it's still the Dems fault.
Being super partisan saves on thinking, but not on dignity!
You seem to have no arguments, once again.
I made 3 of them, not counting pointing our you posted the same kind of empty 'Blame Dems' on this twice before and it wen bad for you.
Right....like when you failed to link to any of these supposed arguments when asked?
Empty suit.
The Dems somehow think they can shut down the government until all of Trump's actions have been reversed -- ain't gonna happen.
This one is going to last a while...
Fact-check: this is not the first time Democrats filibustered a continuing resolution; it is the second time they did it against President Trump. See 115 Cong. Rec. S351-352, January 19, 2018 (Motion to invoke cloture on CR amendment rejected, 50-49)
Look at that. As I mentioned, it was the first time I could remember.
But you appear to be correct. The 2018 issue resulted in a 9 hour shutdown of the government.
How young are you that you can’t remember 2018? If you’re getting basic facts like this wrong maybe be more cautious in your overall conclusions? Well, I guess your handle kind of says it….
This requires a few more points.
1. Government shutdowns are not actually good in practice. They are inefficient and typically result in wasted funds. They may be "politically" good, but from a practical standpoint, they really aren't.
2. Democrats are mad. They want a shutdown, because they want to be seen as doing "something". It's particularly dumb, as what Democrats want are higher funding levels, and stopping funding as a way to get that? It's like spraining your ankle, then shooting yourself in the foot to be seen as "doing something".
3. There's not a good way out of this for Democrats. There's not much to negotiate on. It's a continuing resolution (at Biden administration funding levels). It's actually a pretty good deal for Democrats. You're not going to magically convince the GOP to increase funding dramatically, as the minority party, as opposed to a simple CR. The "Best case scenario" is the Democrats just support what's already on the table. Which makes them look like idiots for the original shutdown.
4. But..I hear. There's much kvetching about rescissions. A few billion that got returned to the treasury. When Democrats are in power, they can change the rules on that, if they so wish. Personally, in this time of massive debt, it makes sense to be able to have Congress and the President agree that if money isn't needed somewhere, it can be returned to the treasury. But...if Dems want to change that rule, they can win the next election and do so.
Hasn’t Trump refused to even negotiate?
The only relevant question is, will the Democrats benefit politically from a shutdown? If the answer is yes, they should go ahead, if not, they shouldn't.
Well, it isn't really "new" spending. It is current spending that was set to expire at year end. So--tomato, tomahto.
It also seems like a tax cut that the Republicans would be for and the Dems opposed. These are small business owners who make too much to qualify for a health care tax credit that buy their policies through the ACA marketplace. They will see their taxes rise tremendously next year. Again, these are many small business owners.
And because I personally benefit from it, I hope the Dems win on this one. Does that make me a hypocrite? Meh, maybe. But I like stuff that helps me out more than some grand principle.
Saudi Arabia is not known as a center for comedy. But through Oct. 9, the country's capital, Riyadh, is hosting dozens of A-list comedians — many of them American — at the first ever Riyadh Comedy Festival.
The participation of big-name funnymen, including Dave Chappelle, Aziz Ansari, Kevin Hart and Jimmy Carr, has provoked criticism from fellow comedians, including Marc Maron, Shane Gillis and Stavros Halkias, as well as human rights groups and other commentators.
https://www.npr.org/2025/09/27/nx-s1-5555462/saudi-comedy-festival-chappelle-hart-maron
I have long said that antisemitism does not exist in a vacuum, that there is an equal hatred of Christians.
They aren't shooting up synagogues...
A shooting occurred on April 27, 2019, at Chabad of Poway synagogue in Poway, California, United States, a city which borders the north inland side of San Diego, on the last day of the Jewish Passover holiday, which fell on a Shabbat. Armed with an AR-15–style rifle,[1] the gunman, John Earnest, fatally shot one woman and injured three other people, including the synagogue's rabbi. After fleeing the scene, Earnest phoned 9-1-1 and reported the shooting.
On October 27, 2018, a man attacked Tree of Life – Or L'Simcha Congregation[b] synagogue in the Squirrel Hill neighborhood of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. The congregation, along with New Light Congregation and Congregation Dor Hadash, which also worshipped in the building, was attacked during Shabbat morning services. The perpetrator killed eleven people and wounded six, in the deadliest attack on a local Jewish community in American history.[6]
Dr Ed....you erred badly here = They aren't shooting up synagogues...
And history says you're FOS.
Let’s be clear — perfectly clear — about what happened last week. On Thursday, a federal grand jury, acting on the urging of President Trump’s Department of Justice, indicted Comey, the former director of the F.B.I. This indictment was the culmination of a transparently vindictive campaign by Trump to get revenge on his political enemies, no matter the facts or the law.
Let’s rewind the clock to May 2017. At the time, the Federal Bureau of Investigation was investigating Russian interference in the 2016 election, and Trump was furious that he was implicated. Trump reportedly demanded that aides speak out in his defense and was so angry that he was screaming at television clips about the investigation.
While Trump has spent years denigrating the “Russia hoax,” it’s important to remember that there was already evidence of serious misconduct on Trump’s team. Trump’s first national security adviser, Michael Flynn, resigned after he misled Vice President Mike Pence about his contacts with the Russian ambassador to the United States. Trump’s campaign chair, Paul Manafort, had to resign in the middle of the campaign in part because of his own lucrative ties to Russian-allied leaders in Ukraine.
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/28/opinion/comey-indictment-trump.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare
"Let’s be clear — perfectly clear — about what happened last week. On Thursday, a federal grand jury, acting on the urging of President Trump’s Department of Justice, indicted Comey, the former director of the F.B.I."
Perfectly clear? You left out the part about the grand jury. So, you're not being perfectly clear, you are being deceptive.
Uh, it’s right in the part you quoted…
IANAL, but I don't think the DoJ can indict, that that's up to the grand jury. Isn't that so?
I'm not seeing your position here. What you quoted, with emphasis added:
Let’s be clear — perfectly clear — about what happened last week. On Thursday, a federal grand jury, acting on the urging of President Trump’s Department of Justice, indicted Comey, the former director of the F.B.I.
I thought you took ham sandwiches very seriously.
Michael Flynn was perjury trapped by the FBI. He hadn't broken any law, but they convinced him that talking to Russians diplomats was illegal, and so were hoping he would lie about it. He did. (He should have refused to answer anything without an attorney).
So he lied to the FBI, which is a crime, but that's a very weak claim to paint him as a criminal.
hobie. Yesterday you said "Plus dude's truck has an NRA sticker and there is a reported Trump/Vance sign on the fence of his house" regarding the Michigan church shooting and arson. Despite examining every photo I could find online of that truck, zooming in and looking, I have been unable to locate an NRA sticker. Also, can you cite the report of a Trump/Vance sign on the fence of his house? Or did you just make this up?
https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/trump-sign-spotted-outside-church-024736202.html
There's that sign. Yet another ANTIFA trannie trumper
Thanks. Where's the NRA sticker?
The NRA sticker was a rumor I saw on Facebook contemporaneous with the sign assertion. I don't know if it is true.
Anywho, my latest theory on this particular incident is that this tranny Marine shot up the Mormons because of the Utah tranny-loving Mormon shooting up Kirk. Just more internecine MAGA factional warfare
Who said that this assailant was a tranny?
He’s making fun of the people here and elsewhere on the right who rush to see trans perps in shootings.
You might want to apologize for the “did you just make this up,” you being into civil discourse and all.
I might want to apologize? Who are you, the civility police? Oca ll people.
What about the NRA sticker?
"The NRA sticker was a rumor I saw on Facebook contemporaneous with the sign assertion. I don't know if it is true."
But you stated it as if it was true.
You often feign to be the civility police so I wanted to see if you’d practice what you preach.
“But you stated it as if it was true.”
I’m not hobie.
"I’m not hobie."
I know, I figured he'd be reading this.
A Polish adventure skier has become the first person to climb Mount Everest and then ski down it without using supplemental oxygen, he and his sponsors announced. The skier, Andrzej Bargiel, 37, completed the feat on Monday, taking four days to ascend from base camp and then two days to ski back down.
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/26/sports/andrzej-bargiel-mount-everest-oxygen-skiing.html
Life is all about priorities...
Federal law enforcement, so far in 2025, vs same period in 2024: Number of people charged in drug conspiracies: -15% Number of people charged w/ money-laundering: -24% Number of people charged w/ importing drugs into US: -6%
Federal law enforcement, so far in 2025, vs same period in 2024:
Number of people charged in drug conspiracies: -15%
Number of people charged w/ money-laundering: -24%
Number of people charged w/ importing drugs into US: -6%
https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/federal-drug-prosecutions-fall-lowest-level-decades-trump-shifts-focus-2025-09-29/
Who could have expected that Trump doesn't care about prosecuting people for money laundering?
Drug import charges down because we blow them up with drones and dispense with the charging portion of the process. If we just started blowing up banks as well, we could reduce money laundering charges significantly!
For everyone's entertainment, here is a handful of ICE agents in Chicago running after a food delivery worker for no apparent reason other than the colour of his skin, and failing to catch him because those e-bike things are fast.
https://bsky.app/profile/wutangforchildren.bsky.social/post/3lzwt3qdezs2n
I guess letting 50 year old good ole' boys join ICE regardless of their physical fitness has consequences...
Yeah, because legal citizens are really going to sprint like that when immigration authorities show up.
Also hilarious: QAnon shaman sues Trump for $40 trillion and targets Musk, T-Mobile and Warner Bros in rambling lawsuit
This is the thanks Trump gets for pardoning this lovable goofball. I note that in his 26-page-single-paragraph complaint he also names Israel as a defendant.
Lots of great NFL games yesterday, interesting to see teams like Baltimore that are clearly good teams be 1-3 right now.
Question, are the NFL measures to achieve parity such as awarding draft picks and strength of future schedule based on previous performance progressive (in the ideological sense)?
The Trump administration has taken advantage of the recent Florida truck crash by changing the rules for non-citizen commercial driver's licenses. In general, the licenses will be harder to get. Under the old rules a driver had to have legal status when licensed. The license might be valid for many years. Under the new rules a CDL must expire when the holder's visa or work permit expires. States must query a federal immigrant database to verify documents.
https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/newsroom/trumps-transportation-secretary-sean-p-duffy-takes-emergency-action-protect-americas-roads
The notice called out several states for "systematic non-compliance" with old license rules: California, Colorado, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Texas, and Washington. California, Colorado, and Washington might be intentionally failing to enforce immigration rules. Texas is probably overwhelmed with applications.
It’s probably not advisable in a time of constitutional crisis. But I’ve long thought about a constitutional amendment that would regularize federal power with agreed new powers and limitations. Something like the following:
Explicit new powers, includimg a power to prohibit private discrimination and a power to regulate the environment. The disscrimination power might be limited by conservatives - for example, perhaps limited to race and biological sex, with the government not having power to prohibit songle-sex esucation or interfere with traditional mores and privacy concerns (dress codes, separate bathrooms, etc.) that don’t prevent people from holding a job.
There would then be explicit limitations on existing powers, including:
The powers to regulate commerce do not extend to regulate simple possession, personal use, or private intrastate sale by people not dealers or in the business of selling, nor to businesses that grow or manufacture and sell entirely within a single state.
The power to regulate navigable waters does not extend putside the waters themselves.
The power to spend money does not include the power to condition a grant to a state or local government on its passing or enforcing a law of general applicabiloty with respect to its citizens.
WOW if you think US courts are dysfunctional, compare them to India. Very interesting article from the BBC:
Justice on hold: India court crippled by a million-case backlog
The Allahabad High Court - one of India's oldest and most prestigious, once graced by figures like India's first premier Jawaharlal Nehru and future Supreme Court judges - is back in the spotlight.
This time, though, for very different reasons.
With more than a million cases pending, it is among the most overburdened courts in the country. Matters ranging from criminal trials to property and family disputes have been pending here for decades, leaving thousands of people in India's most populous state, Uttar Pradesh, trapped in legal limbo.
Consider Babu Ram Rajput, 73, a retired government employee who has been battling a property dispute for over three decades.
He bought land at an auction in 1992, but the previous owner challenged the sale - and the case remains unresolved to this day.
"I just hope my case is decided while I'm still alive," Mr Rajput says.
The high court's struggle mirrors a broader crisis in India's judiciary, where too few judges and a constant flood of cases have caused crippling delays.
With a sanctioned strength of 160 that experts say has never been completely filled, the court is severely understaffed. Delays in police investigations, frequent adjournments, and poor infrastructure further add to the backlog, leaving the system stretched beyond capacity.
Each judge faces hundreds of cases a day - sometimes over 1,000. With just five working hours, that's less than a minute per case. In practice, many aren't heard at all.
...
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4gz4y4p80po
One last sports story. I watched the UVA victory over FSU on ESPN Friday. Thrilling overtime game where underdogs defeated a Goliath. UVA fans were rocking and rushed the field in excitement.
But it appears 19 people were hurt.
Should field or court rushes be cracked down on? On the one hand I hate to see any injuries and the potential is bound to be there. On the other these kind of events are iconic to those involved and we can’t make every fun thing totally safe.
https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/field-storming-after-virginias-upset-win-over-fsu-leads-to-19-people-being-treated-for-injuries/#
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 | 9.29.2025 7:00 AM
Emma Camp | From the October 2025 issue
Charles Oliver | 9.29.2025 4:00 AM
Jacob Sullum | 9.28.2025 6:15 PM
Katarina Hall | From the October 2025 issue
