Great TV. youtu.be/eBKWKu2Rqxc?...

Very strong Redemption vibes from the former Confederacy...day by day. www.newspapers.com/article/the-...

Redemption Localism. Example #29875 papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....

Friendly reminder that white supremacy was itself a partisan political strategy wielded opportunistically by the former planter “Bourbon” elite during Redemption to consolidate political power against the multiracial coalition created by Reconstruction.

"The difference between yes and no votes is less than .000000001% of the number of plankton in the Indian Ocean...so, MATH!"

Town meeting democracy at its finest.

One reason Roberts might think the Court is not “political” is that SCOTUS has been dominated by conservatives for so long, that most of the decisive interpretive battles have been intra-conservative battles. These are still political! But it’s a special kind of echo chamber/ivory tower.

MAKE JEROME FRANK GREAT AGAIN!!!

I think he believes in this cult of neutrality fantasy that he's peddling. In a way I wish he were just a cynic. At least that would mean he was self-aware. The self-deception makes the politics harder to stomach. And the preachiness in service of the self-deception is both sad and infuriating.

Always read @hashtagblevin.bsky.social. Especially on our very occasional joint newsletter. substack.com/@benjaminlev...

I am once again begging the world to stop making my research into some of the worst moments in American history relevant in the present. papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....

Redemption was a STRUGGLE between multiracial democracy and white supremacy. It's easy to see Jim Crow at the end of that struggle and despair in this 2nd Redemption. But the outcome of struggle is not foreordained. The work of building a pro-democracy mass politics remains urgent and essential.

This is basically right, though you could narrow the window from 1968 (Green) to 1973 (Rodriguez).

It is worth, I think, emphasizing that in trampling congressional attempts to protect the rights of Black people, the Court is basically doing what it has always done, with the exception of a couple decades in the mid-20th century when it often worked with Congress to protect the rights of Black ppl

Colorblindness means that existing inequalities and the policies which support them are constitutional, but race-conscious efforts to fix those inequalities are unconstitutional. The way to stop discriminating on the basis of race is, apparently, to pretend that racial inequality does not exist.

Redemption 2, Electric Boogaloo.

In the compromise between radicals and moderates that led to the 14th Amendment, the radicals sacrificed land reform and redistribution for the thin reed of suffrage. Since then, white supremacists have tried to exclude non-whites from voting. Multiracial democracy is a struggle, not a promise.

MAKE CLEVER LAW EXAM ACRONYMS GREAT AGAIN!

Gerrymandering is a reminder that all jurisdictional boundaries are political choices. We frequently adjust congressional districts, but we treat school districts and suburbs as naturally occurring and inviolate. Obviously there are real differences, but it's all politically contingent and chosen.

This is perfect internet content.

It's a loser's move to complain about the umpires (conservative academics mad about reporting leaks) while the rest of us are watching what's happening on the field (John Roberts is a movement conservative and has always been).

To be fair, would watch and enjoy an actual horse race between Pope Leo and Trump.

MAKE THE LEAST DANGEROUS BRANCH GREAT AGAIN!!

Mild take: disbarment is actually a very limited punishment for seeking to subvert the project of multiracial democracy through lies, subversion, and bad faith.

Something, something, "diet coke into wine."

Did Vance convert just so he could claim he invented Protestantism?

Most originalists will argue loudly that Dred Scott is not “good” originalism. (Which, of course Taney did not know about “fixation” or whatever.) But little by little these goons seem committed to rebuilding Taney’s vision of the Constitution.

The angels appear to be ICE Agents? Amazing. Real 1850s white baptists arguing that slavery was a divine institution vibes... www.google.com/books/editio...

Kittens are great, cats suck. Puppies suck, dogs are great.

This is the truth. And everything about it explains basically all of America, Con Law, etc.

This from Philip Hamburger seems slightly more careful and measured than other originalist salvos against birthright citizenship. That said, it reveals the extent to which originalism is a quibblers game--and a truly unappealing way to think about our fundamental law. lawliberty.org/allegiance-b...

The Red Sox are abject. What a bummer.

This is characteristically thoughtful and wise. Two gentle quibbles: 1)Steve seems to accept that GOOD history might give us better answers, but I think folks like Jonathan Gienapp have shown us that good history shows us that good history shows us that originalism asks bad questions.

1/Daniel Farbman (Boston University), with an absolute, vital critique of my many frustrations with originalism. As a historian, you would think I would rock with originalism, but I have real questions with a theory that eschews constitutional change.

Long stretch of radio silence on our blog/newsletter, but the new post from @danfarbman.bsky.social is very much worth the wait. Emerson & the false promise of originalism. Give it a read. An Originalist Relation to the Universe open.substack.com/pub/postcard...

Posted this last night. On why originalism is such an unappealing way to think about law. open.substack.com/pub/postcard...

"In Emerson’s words, we are 'build[ing] sepulchres of the fathers' and seeking the authority of the past rather than 'demanding our own works and laws and worship.' ... Rather than enjoying an 'original relation to the universe,' we are subjected to an originalist relation to the universe."

I've been musing over our latest outbreak in the originalism wars, and what came out was an Emersonian polemic. You can take a look over at @hashtagblevin.bsky.social and my newsletter if you are interested. open.substack.com/pub/postcard...

This is actually 13/10.

Periodic reminder that the 14th Amendment was, among other things, an armistice pact. It is insufficiently radical on some points (land reform, substantive racial equality), but it is also muscularly categorical on others. It should, at a minimum, always be read as a rejection of the Confederacy.

This essay is, indeed, excellent. Essential to the argument is that the horror of Dred Scott is a horror of statelessness and subordination that is inclusive of slavery, but that goes further. Beyond the scholastic quibbling of the revisionists--the desire to make babies stateless is abhorrent.

It’s the FIFA Peace Chair.

Would be hilarious if Trump just went unhinged pro-se while he’s at the Court tomorrow.

Just taught SFFA and was again blown away by how stupid the whole conversation about the "sunset" argument is. Apart from everything else, 20 years is only 80% of 25 years. Kavanaugh's smug sermonizing about it is so depressingly dishonest.

This is excellent. Two meta-comments: 1) The essay is excellently lawyered (analytically clear, organized). I take this as a second-order defense of legal analysis in political struggles. 2) It is also resolutely pragmatic without being moderate. These are vital virtues to hold together these days.

My tepid take on the ongoing Moyn kerfuffle is that the whole feedback loop is exhibit ZZ of how originalism (and by extension its discontents) makes everything worse and stupider. Even when we try to talk about building a strategy for a healthy politics, the quagmire demands its toll of us.

PSA for slacker parents still figuring out camp. 1) It's very dumb that you have to plan for summer camp in November. 2) My amazing summer camp in the Berkshires (Rowe) still has spots for this summer. It's a place that changed my life. Feel free to DM me for more info. rowecenter.org/youth-camps/

This dead right. Not for nothing, Douglass' view is also skeptical of the background nativist logics of borders--for obvious and good reasons. Borders are legal fictions with some, but limited, utility. Other things, lots of other things--including human rights, matter more.

To be fair to her, this is basically dead letter in and out of the courts since Vietnam. In my Realist soul, I’m honestly not sure what it means to insist that “the constitution” requires congress to declare war when none of the branches of government feel at all constrained by that requirement.