Judge stops FTC from enforcing ban on non-compete agreements

The US does not falsely convict and jail innocent people en masse as policy. If anything. A much bigger problem is that the US does not convict and jail criminals en masse as policy.

There is no better time and place to be a criminal in the US than today. Criminals are being coddled, which is why most Democrat cities are so crime-ridden.

>Japan

Sweet baby Jesus NO.

Japan is literally a 1.5 party state (LDP with Komei Party latching on as yes men), and the last time the Japanese electorate decided to give the minority JDP a shot it resulted in the worst manmade nuclear disaster in post-war history and the JDP collapsing into two different and irrelevant parties (CDP and DPFP).

And today the LDP party leader election stems from a leaderless leader (Kishida) failing to both lead his country (stagnant economy and policies) and manage his party (politicians from mere Parliament members to cabinet ministers engaging in literal tax evasion).

All the while the Japanese electorate's sentiment is "o rly" because nobody couldn't care less who becomes the new LDP leader and thus next Japanese Prime Minister because nothing will really change. I haven't met a single Japanese voter who understands how Parliament members are elected, either.

I frankly much prefer the American shithouse, at least it's fun and even makes sense (yes, including the Electoral College) once you actually study it.

Context note: I'm Japanese-American.

Reflects the bias of your news reading. Federal courts mirror the politics of their location. Naturally this leads to circuit splits.

I’m not sold on this narrative. Which Republican cities are you comparing to?

A couple reasons:

1) Recency bias, you probably remember more of these cases from Texas right now because that's the subject of this article.

2) The district and appelate courts in the US vary widely in their judicial ideologies, and usually align closely with their local political leanings. In today's political landscape with a democratic administration, it's unsurprising that courts in conservative districts frequently rule against federal agencies. Notably this judge was appointed by Trump, and is citing recent rulings and legal theory from the current radically conservative Supreme Court. Judges in liberal areas are still under some obligation to take precedent into account, so the case may have gone the same way even with a liberal judge, now that the Chevron Doctrine is more or less dead due to the Supreme Court. But liberal judges still often diverge from the legal theory conservative supreme court justices are using today.

3) Judge shopping, ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forum_shopping#United_States ) the case was intentionally filed in a district that is known for conservative judges that are friendly to corporations, were appointed by Trump, and align closely to the supreme court's legal ideology. The Northern District of Texas were this case was decided is a common choice for such shopping, especially because they explicitly ignore policy guidelines (that are sadly nonbinding) to prevent judge shopping.