22 U.S.C. § 2378d

But as with Rahimi: alcoholism, like domestic violence, has always existed and was recognized at the Founding, and just like the absence of laws specifically disarming DV abusers isn't dispositive, neither is the lack of laws specifically disarming alcoholics while sober.

Didn't the Fifth Circuit say that the Founding generation didn't disarm alcoholics while they were sober, though, even as they disarmed other types of mentally ill people? That's the rub.

On this point you may be able to distinguish between different types of drugs. A person addicted to bath salts is more likely to resemble those whom the Founders called "lunatics" than someone behaviorally addicted to marijuana. But that would be an as-applied issue I think

Also, again, explain how "addict" is unconstitutionally vague.

I really disagree with 3 as applied to "addicts." The Founding generation institutionalized and disarmed the mentally ill. Drug addiction is a form of mental illness that can make someone unfit to possess a weapon for the same reasons that other forms of mental illness recognized at the Founding can

Elon is right though, the choice is between being a woke liberal and being mechahitler. That is a good argument for being a woke liberal.

My favorite scene

I pledge that I will not provide any service to Columbia University. I will not speak at conferences held at or organized by Columbia. I will not publish with Columbia publications or provide peer reviews for them. I will not provide outside tenure evaluations for Columbia departments. I will not contribute in any way to the institution until everyone who is responsible for this week’s shameful decision has resigned, retired, or been fired, and until Columbia repudiates their catastrophic choice.

I wonder if the Columbia leadership realizes (or cares) how much blowback there might be from *within* the academy.

This post, from a Cornell Law professor, is worth reading:

3d.laboratorium.net/2025-07-25-c...

This is both antisemitic and genocide-denialist. Well done

Plenty of Jews, like me, had enough of a moral conscience to oppose this horrific massacre from the beginning. Biden and Trump actively facilitated it. Trump’s Jewish family had nothing to do with that; he supports Israel because he is evil

Who are you and what have you done to Jennifer Rubin?

I agree with your take, of course.

This account is so obviously an AI bot it’s painful

“Viewed by CNN”? Yeah, I bet!

The areas that Cuomo won were those that had the least diversity, such as places that were overwhelmingly white (like the UES) or overwhelmingly Black (like parts of the Bronx).

People of all races who lived in more mixed and diverse neighborhoods voted for Mamdani.

Mamdani’s coalition was multiracial and middle-income. His coalition looked like the city and looked like America. It represents the diversity that both MAGA and Cuomocrats despise.

Saying Mamdani was elected by higher income voters is untrue. Cuomo won voters making $150K+

Mamdani won the majority of POC due to winning Asian and Hispanic voters. He also won Black neighborhoods in Harlem, Bed-Stuy & Crown Heights

The main divide is age and college attainment, not race/income

If they get Joe Biden on record endorsing Mamdani, it’s game over.

On X, Elon Musk Has Trained Grok To Be Overtly Anti-Semitic. But On Bluesky, Some People Say There Should Not Be Genocide Against Palestinians. Do American Jews Have Anywhere To Go? We Asked Stephen Miller

Tomorrow In The New York Times

I'm horrified by the deadly shooting outside the Capital Jewish Museum in Washington D.C. last night. My thoughts are with the victims and their families—as well as all those who must contend with the appalling rise in antisemitic violence. We owe it to one another to confront hate with the urgency and solidarity it demands, and to ensure our Jewish neighbors can live safely and free of fear. May the memories of both victims be a blessing.

I'm devastated by today's horrific attack in Boulder and condemn it in the strongest possible terms. Throwing firebombs at a peaceful event for Israeli hostages only adds fear and suffering to a world already too full of both. I am praying for the six victims and their families. As political violence grows sickeningly familiar, let us redouble our efforts to banish hate from our society.

There are also these statements on the DC and Boulder attacks.

He’s ineligible

Zohran Mamdani is very much not an antisemite.

Signed: Your very very Zionist and Jewish friend.

1) Acting as a shareholder of private companies is not among the powers that Article II confers to the office of the president, particularly in the absence of enabling legislation.

2) Because the president vetoing U.S. Steel changing its name would violate the First Amendment.

This is clearly unconstitutional and one of the shareholders should sue.

Tens of thousands in a city of 600K. Likely single-digit pctages. That tracks. It doesn't explain why there are 377,000 missing from the current numbers or permit the inference that they are living in the rubble of Gaza's least-populated areas, under exclusion orders and w/o viable aid distribution

**"military threat" in the previous post is heavily caveated; I think Israel's view is that civilian life in the Gaza Strip is an inherent military threat to Israel's security. But that logic can't be accepted when evaluating whether Israel's actions pass muster under the principle of distinction.

Akiva's point, as I understood it, is that even though the IDF is intentionally targeting civilians and civilian infrastructure (consciously knowing that these targets pose no military threat), it may not constitute genocide.

Regarding the question you asked about whether the IDF is deliberately destroying civilian infrastructure or only doing so with indifference, there is no debate. The IDF deliberately destroys civilian infrastructure, often including already-empty civilian buildings.

Personally, I don't think the most urgent task right now is to relitigate those core principles but to apply them correctly to the Gaza war, which has involved some of the most destructive acts deliberately being carried out by a state against a civilian population in the world.

These are valid questions to ask about the way international law has been structured for decades, which, for better or worse, privileges collective rights in many ways (including the emphasis on the crime of genocide).

(And also the U.S. would object to the prosecution of its citizens before the ICC on jurisdictional grounds, even though jurisdiction would clearly exist on the basis that war crimes were committed in the territory of a state party)

Of course, even if it's not genocide, U.S. citizens can be prosecuted before the ICC, and should be, but I don't know if there would be a basis to prosecute them under domestic American criminal law the way there would be if we conclude that it is a genocide.