Paul Gowder

@paulgowder.bsky.social

1801

Followers

1868

Following

1160

Posts

Law prof (& associate dean of research, eeek) @ Northwestern law, political theorist, occasional programmer, cat parent. Black lives still matter. https://gowder.io

Posts Replies Media

Reposted by

Paul Gowder

Alexander Hamilton, Federalist 69 avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century...

Reposted by

Paul Gowder

Not to be corny but I do think the ongoing aspiration to make America a pluralist democracy of equals is righteous, beautiful, and worth honoring, even if it has more often been the struggle of minorities & dissenters than the policy of the government. 🇺🇸

Reposted by

Paul Gowder

I will bring this one back every year

‘What To The Slave Is The Fourth Of July?’: Descendants Read Frederick Douglass' Speech | NPRyoutu.be In the summer of 2020, the U.S. commemorated Independence Day amid nationwide protests for racial justice and systemic reforms in the wake of George Floyd’s ...

Reposted by

Paul Gowder

Reply to

Seth Cotlar

There’s a really fascinating Boston Review that explores the Black Radical writing about authoritarianism & the fascist tradition in the US www.bostonreview.net/articles/lon...

The Long Shadow of Racial Fascism - Boston Reviewwww.bostonreview.net A debate is roiling about the aptness of comparing Trump to European fascists. But radical Black thinkers have long argued that racial slavery created its own unique form of American fascism.

Reposted by

Paul Gowder

this entire crusade against diversity in hiring and admissions is based on the supposition that all white men are necessarily more qualified than any nonwhite person or woman who might be considered for the job. like, this lawsuit more or less states that outright.

Lawsuit: Northwestern’s law school is biased against White men in hiringwww.washingtonpost.com The lawsuit, filed by a prominent attorney, alleges the university’s law school gives hiring preference to women and people of color.

Reposted by

Paul Gowder

Awesome quote by @paulgowder.bsky.social in here. "Absolute racist garbage . . . ." And again, Jonathan Mitchell is awful.

A lawsuit filed against Northwestern University opened a new front in the legal battle against affirmative action, alleging that its law school hires less-qualified people of color and women over White men for faculty positions in violation of federal anti-discrimination laws.

Lawsuit: Northwestern’s law school is biased against White men in hiringwapo.st The lawsuit, filed by a prominent attorney, alleges the university’s law school gives hiring preference to women and people of color.

Reposted by

Paul Gowder

Reply to

Gautam Hans

You'll have to read the WaPo piece for this entirely accurate take from @paulgowder.bsky.social that this lawsuit is racist garbage. www.washingtonpost.com/education/20...

Reposted by

Paul Gowder

Doomscrolling is hard to resist. But stop. RIGHT NOW. Open a new document and type a two-sentence summary of your current research. Tweet-length, that’s all. Use that to refocus on your work.

Reposted by

Paul Gowder

an extremist legal movement whose origins are rooted in the early 19th century debates on states’ rights and citizenship with access to a rotating set of hype men and militias today we call it conservative originalism the states’ rights meme, it’s translation into law, and it’s consequences

The “Originalist” Supreme Court vs Democracy As the Right is using “originalism” to re-impose a reactionary order on the country, I exchange letters with @audrelawdamercy.bsky.social about the dangers of judicial supremacy – and how to get out of this trap Some thoughts from my new piece: 🧵1/

The “Originalist” Supreme Court vs Democracythomaszimmer.substack.com As the Right is using “originalism” to re-impose a reactionary order on the country, I exchange letters with Madiba Dennie about the dangers of judicial supremacy – and how to get out of this trap

Reposted by

Paul Gowder

Thinking a lot about how the bipartisan project of police immunity to law helped set the stage for this.

Reposted by

Paul Gowder

🥳😅

NEW: Rudy Giuliani has been disbarred in New York www.nycourts.gov/courts/ad1/c...

about to go on WVON to explain how horrible the trump decision is

Reposted by

Paul Gowder

Reply to

Mitchell Epner

2/ . . . carried out such illegal orders would be subject to criminal prosecution, even if the President was not. BUT (HUGE BUT) the President has an absolute and unreviewable power to pardon anyone for federal crimes. So, he could promise all soldiers that (a) if they carry out the illegal . . .

Reposted by

Paul Gowder

1/ Let me explain one way that today's Trump immunity decision threatens the survival of the Republic. Under today's ruling, a President would be immune for any way in which he used the military (a "core function"), even to kill American citizens in America. Theoretically, the soldiers who . . .

Reposted by

Paul Gowder

It's just hilariously disingenuous. Imagine looking at, say, ALL OF HUMAN HISTORY and concluding that the biggest threat to liberty isn't abuse of power, but powerful people refraining from sufficiently wielding their authority out of fear that they might one day be held accountable.

It's not the worst of it, but what I may be actually angriest about (right now) is Roberts' smarmy smugness and dismissiveness in the final two paragraphs of section IV and the whole of section V. "Fear mongering," "extreme hypotheticals," "our perspective must be more farsighted," and this.

Reposted by

Paul Gowder

Sorry dude, History And Traditions only applies to whether women are allowed to get abortions or can be hanged for being witches.

It occurs to me that the Supreme Idiots have actually created a Presidency more powerful than the British King at the time of the founding. Charles I got executed for official acts for which the U.S. President is now immune.

It's also amazing how Sonia Sotomayor, an actually competent Justice, shreds the autocrat majority arguments utterly in a single page's worth of text across pgs 5-6. And then again at the end. (typo-fix repost and expansion)

Reposted by

Paul Gowder

starting to think this isn't about the Constitution, like, at all

Reposted by

Paul Gowder

This Originalist™ court has effectively immunized both the president and all federal law enforcement officers from any meaningful accountability. Because if there are two things the Founders cherished, it's the power of a king-like executive and armed agents of the government to act with impunity.

Reposted by

Paul Gowder

Just that single paragraph that straddles pp 5-6 is an extremely powerful argument.

Reposted by

Paul Gowder

The one thing I'll note about the immunity case is that J Alito, joined by CJ Roberts, wrote about the importance and power of limiting instructions just 10 days ago. Today, limiting instructions are good enough for individual defendants but not for protecting the Presidency.

Reposted by

Paul Gowder

After oral argument, I predicted SCOTUS would grant presidential immunity for official acts. But, today's opinion went further in its guidance re: "official acts." The majority wrote that acts like Trump pressuring Pence to overturn the election are presumptively "official acts," which is madness.

IMHO, the best likely outcome (for the rule of law) is that the majority decides there is official act immunity for Presidents (defined broadly), but remands the issue of whether Trump was acting in an official capacity to the trial court. That would leave the possibility of hearing the case again.

Reposted by

Paul Gowder

The Court has purported to strip us of all legal recourse for crimes committed by the most powerful person in the nation. Each and every one of us is now, effectively, at the mercy of an autocrat, who could order our death if he simply made the pretense of connecting it to his official duties.

Criminal law probably functioned as some kind of deterrent on abuses of presidential power, and that deterrent is now gone. But even if that weren't true, today's ruling would be an appalling display of contempt for the American people and for the basic principles on which this country rests.

Every morning Joe Biden personally slashes John Roberts's tires. JR: "What are you doing?" JB: "I'm carrying out my duties as commander in chief. Your car might have gotten in the way of a tank, so I carried out a preemptive strike on it." JR: "Carry on then."

On reflection, that would not work. The Supreme Court would say: you are exercising a power you do not have; we nullify those grants of citizenship. It has to be an actual act. Maybe he should order the entire federal fleet of cars etc. to park in the justices' parking spots. ALL the SCOTUS spots.

Reposted by

Paul Gowder

“You’re a lawyer! What does this mean, really?” Man, I don’t fucking know. In the last week an entire area of law I studied was more or less rendered entirely moot and now there’s one specific guy in the whole country who may be able to do anything he wants without recourse. This is kind of new.

Reposted by

Paul Gowder

Of all the people out there casting blame for election results, this motherfucker should really, really keep his mouth shut. Without him, no Roberts. (Or Alito)

Reposted by

Paul Gowder

In a lot of ways the entire Republican establishment since the 70s has been dedicated to making sure that what happened to Nixon would never be allowed to happen to one of theirs again

the Supreme Court, not content to immunize only Donald Trump from prosecution, retroactively exonerates Richard Nixon for Watergate

I wonder if the government could argue that pardoning itself would be an official act but taking money would not be? That no inquiring into motive bit causes tensions there, but taking money (or attempting to do so) is a separate act from the exercise of the power motivated by it...

I do wonder where the immunity ruling leaves the claim that Rudy Giuliani and Trump were trying to sell pardons for $2 million. Pardons are an official act.