Paul Gowder

Paul Gowder

@paulgowder.bsky.social

1162

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

How do we adjust to a world where major democracies have long-term viable fascist parties? It feels like we'll just be having existential election after existential election, and we have to win every time whereas they only have to win once.

Reposted by

A widely predicted victory for the far right in France has instead turned into a victory for the left *because people turned out in record numbers to vote.* Defeat is not inevitable and more progressive elected officials means more progressive policies.

In France, the left coalition comes in first, Macron second, the far-right third. The best way to defeat fascism is not centrism, it’s a strong left.

Reposted by

It's not that the leaders are incidentally bad, the badness is what makes them good leaders for this movement, which again is to make as many people as fundamentally rotten as possible

Being a good citizen, being a good neighbor, being a helpful and attentive student, being a good community member, even what was once considered being a good Christian - all of these things are antithetical to the right wing movement

Reposted by

The thing that's obvious to everyone and that nobody can actually write in the press is that the American (and yes, I'm sure elsewhere too) right wing is led by bad people and the object is to make more people extremely bad in basically every respect. It's anti-society

Reposted by

New York Times, July 5, 2025: “Biden’s Stumbles And Gaffes During His Criticism of President Trump’s Internment Camps Vindicate Age Concerns”

Reposted by

Just in time for July 4, my colleague Sarah Swan has posted her stunning new paper (forthcoming in Yale Law Journal) on police suing people they are supposed to protect. papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....

the long years of tory misrule have finally come to an end

Reposted by

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

Reposted by

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

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

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

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

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

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...

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

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

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

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

Reposted by

🥳😅

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

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

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

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

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 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

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

Reposted by

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

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