Lightnews — Scholar-powered news

Jerry Edwards @jerryedwards.bsky.social · 1h

It's bad enough when they destroy civil rights gains achieved through the courts, but it is a whole nother level of evil to dismantle what Congress created---one of the most important & significant pieces of civil rights legislation in American history. Rotten institution controlled by rotten people

1 1

Reposted by Jerry Edwards

Justin Zimmerman @jztidecat.bsky.social · 2h

I would like to reiterate that the Supreme Court is a joke of an institution as has been so for the majority of its existence.

4 9 33

Reposted by Jerry Edwards

Quinn Yeargain @yeargain.bsky.social · 3h

In 2018, Utahns adopted an initiated statute to create a redistricting commission. The legislature repealed it, and after a long legal battle, a judge ruled that the legislature's repeal was unconstitutional. Republicans are trying again—and I think they're violating the Utah Constitution again.

Utah attorney general backs GOP initiative to repeal redistricting laws

The Utah Republican Party has one month to collect over 150,000 signatures.

www.deseret.com

1 6 17

Jerry Edwards @jerryedwards.bsky.social · 2h

In an ideal world, I agree. I think a "colorblind" framing is wrong in principle in our current world, separate and apart from the ridiculousness of applying it to remedies in cases where the plaintiffs proved racial discrimination.

Reposted by Jerry Edwards

Eric Segall @espinsegall.bsky.social · 2h

People think an article by a respected originalist about the President firing executive officers might deter the justices from their current plan to overturn longstanding case law saying Congress can limit the President’s ability to fire such officers. No chance. www.dorfonlaw.org/2025/10/the-...

The Emperor's New Clothes Originalism

Law Professor Caleb Nelson made a big splash this week by arguing that under the text and original meaning of the Constitution, Congress ha...

www.dorfonlaw.org

2 5 14

Reposted by Jerry Edwards

Michael C. Dorf @dorfonlaw.bsky.social · 2h

NY Times and others are breathlessly reporting on an article by originalist Caleb Nelson concluding that the unitary executive was not part of the original meaning of the Constitution. But why? SCOTUS conservatives don't actually care about original meaning, as @espinsegall.bsky.social shows here👇

The Emperor's New Clothes Originalism

Law Professor Caleb Nelson made a big splash this week by arguing that under the text and original meaning of the Constitution, Congress ha...

www.dorfonlaw.org

1 6 13

Jerry Edwards @jerryedwards.bsky.social · 2h

Agreed. Originalism won't stop the six Republicans from advancing their partisan and ideological objectives.

1 2

Jerry Edwards @jerryedwards.bsky.social · 2h

That would be an absurdity. There's no basis in the Constitution or the VRA itself for such a requirement. Of course, it benefits the Republican Party, which is enough for the six in the majority. (I know I'm preaching to the choir here.)

1

Reposted by Jerry Edwards

Kevin Morris @kevintmorris.bsky.social · 20h

This is going to be my soapbox for a while, but we're seeing this jurisprudence change in real time. When Rucho was decided, the Court at least acknowledged that partisan gerrymandering was unfortunate. Today, it's treated as a legit goal for states to pursue and one that VRA districts must respect

5 23 91

Reposted by Jerry Edwards

Kevin Morris @kevintmorris.bsky.social · 3h

I've been calling this the Rucho–Alexander two-step. In very short order go from "partisan gerrymandering is lamentable but not addressable by the Court" to "if it COULD be partisan gerrymandering, it MUST be partisan gerrymandering"

Jerry Edwards @jerryedwards.bsky.social · 4h

They also explicitly greenlighted this sophistry last year in Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP. Alito argued there that racial discrimination isn't racial discrimination if Republicans target Black voters for political reasons.

1 11 48

Jerry Edwards @jerryedwards.bsky.social · 2h

That is absolutely nuts. It's consistent with Alito's misrepresentation of Rucho in Alexander. Still, it remains galling.

1 1

Jerry Edwards @jerryedwards.bsky.social · 2h

As President of Antifa, I'd like to say that Glenn is unsurprisingly way off base.

1 4

Reposted by Jerry Edwards

Aaron Reichlin-Melnick @reichlinmelnick.bsky.social · 3h

National Lawyers Guild, the org on the top left?

When Joseph McCarthy finally got “have you no shame”d, the person he was targeting at that hearing had been a volunteer for them. So let’s just say they’ve been in the crosshairs for many decades.

Matthew Gertz @mattgertz.bsky.social · 3h

Glenn Beck says that after he aired a show on Antifa, FBI agents acting on the behest of Kash Patel came to get tips. Here's who the segment targeted, largely through strained connections and guilt by association: www.mediamatters.org/glenn-beck/g...

8 47 170

Jerry Edwards @jerryedwards.bsky.social · 4h

But Jonathon, they're engaging in racial discrimination for political reasons, not because they hate Black people. It's different. Just ask John Roberts, Brett Kavanaugh, and the other SCOTUS Republicans. That's why those Republicans need to strike down vital civil rights legislation.

Reposted by Jerry Edwards

Jonathon Booth @jboothhistory.bsky.social · 23h

Kind of seems like without the VRA race still would be used in redistricting

The New York Times @nytimes.com · 23h

If the Supreme Court strikes down Section 2 of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, which has been interpreted to require the creation of majority-minority districts, Republicans could eliminate upward of a dozen Democratic-held districts across the South. Here's how.

The Supreme Court Case That Could Hand the House to Republicans

Democrats would be in danger of losing around a dozen majority-minority districts across the South if the court struck down part of the Voting Rights Act.

nyti.ms

1 1 4

Reposted by Jerry Edwards

Jay Willis @jaywillis.net · 23h

I’ll add that many of the arguments that conservative legal movement luminaries are making now would not have flown even in FedSoc circles a decade ago. It matters that they are comfortable saying this stuff in public, and that the conservative lawyers who reject these arguments are now irrelevant.

ryan cooper @ryanlcooper.com · 1d

"they've always been like this" is always a tempting savvy take but it is just not true that Republican staffers were 100 percent open Nazis back in 2004, or hell even 2014. they just weren't

Michael Caley @michaelcaley.bsky.social · 1d

there have been a lot of responses to this arguing that young Republicans were motivated by such feelings but didn't express them openly

and I think a crucial lesson of the Trump era is that there is great value in people not expressing these things openly! that's a big and decisive change!

2 26 190

Reposted by Jerry Edwards

Jay Willis @jaywillis.net · 1d

Everything about John Roberts's approach to the Voting Rights Act makes sense when you remember that John Roberts has has always been hostile to the Voting Rights Act, never believed it was appropriate, and has spent most of his 45-year legal career working to hollow it out.

One of the Biggest Cases of the Supreme Court’s Term Is John Roberts’ Decadeslong Pet Project

If there’s one thing the Roberts court has been consistent on, it’s this.

slate.com

44 420 1.2K

Reposted by Jerry Edwards

jamelle @jamellebouie.net · 4h

roberts thinks it is an affront that a community of upstanding citizens can not do as it chooses when it comes to voting. if that means that they might discriminate against a racial minority, he has no problem with that either as long as it is facially neutral.

Jay Willis @jaywillis.net · 1d

Everything about John Roberts's approach to the Voting Rights Act makes sense when you remember that John Roberts has has always been hostile to the Voting Rights Act, never believed it was appropriate, and has spent most of his 45-year legal career working to hollow it out.

One of the Biggest Cases of the Supreme Court’s Term Is John Roberts’ Decadeslong Pet Project

If there’s one thing the Roberts court has been consistent on, it’s this.

slate.com

29 380 1.8K

Jerry Edwards @jerryedwards.bsky.social · 4h

They also explicitly greenlighted this sophistry last year in Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP. Alito argued there that racial discrimination isn't racial discrimination if Republicans target Black voters for political reasons.

1 10

Reposted by Jerry Edwards

Imani Gandy Corn 🎃 @angryblacklady.blacksky.app · 1d

you cannot remedy racism without focusing on race. it's asinine to try.

3 76 490

Jerry Edwards @jerryedwards.bsky.social · 4h

Which is an extraordinarily dumb argument to start, but it's even dumber in this case because the VRA requires proof of discrimination in the present. This is all about helping the Republican Party because the majority are right-wing Republicans.

3

Reposted by Jerry Edwards

Pat Sobkowski @patsobkowski.com · 1d

This court’s approach to the VRA is “yeah, racism was kinda bad back in the day and the VRA helped to fix it. But now racism is over so let’s get rid of the VRA, too.”

1 4 13

Reposted by Jerry Edwards

Dominique Baker @bakerdphd.bsky.social · 16h

I'm not commenting on scotus today because I have to focus on one dumpster fire at a time so as not to have a heart attack in my 30s. I will just say, today is a great day to learn more about Reconstruction. I'll keep recommending Black Reconstruction as one of my favorite books on the period.

3 120 610

Reposted by Jerry Edwards

gelbach @gelbach.bsky.social · 13h

A remarkable piece

Ansley Erickson @ansleyerickson.bsky.social · 13h

Former Columbia Provost Jonathan Cole asks the university to bravely admit where it was wrong:

www.columbiaspectator.com/opinion/2025...

Columbia must now show courage and empathy

Dear Columbia leaders,

www.columbiaspectator.com

2 6

Reposted by Jerry Edwards

Aaron Reichlin-Melnick @reichlinmelnick.bsky.social · 13h

Again, it is a full-blown federal felony crime for anyone in the White House or Executive Office of the President to order tax investigations into anyone.

And it's not just a crime to DO it, it's even a federal crime for an employee not to REPORT such an order to the Treasury Inspector General.

26 U.S. Code § 7217 - Prohibition on executive branch influence over taxpayer audits and other investigations
U.S. Code
Notes
prev | next
(a)Prohibition
It shall be unlawful for any applicable person to request, directly or indirectly, any officer or employee of the Internal Revenue Service to conduct or terminate an audit or other investigation of any particular taxpayer with respect to the tax liability of such taxpayer.

(b)Reporting requirement
Any officer or employee of the Internal Revenue Service receiving any request prohibited by subsection (a) shall report the receipt of such request to the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration.

(c)Exceptions
Subsection (a) shall not apply to any written request made—
(1)to an applicable person by or on behalf of the taxpayer and forwarded by such applicable person to the Internal Revenue Service;
(2)by an applicable person for disclosure of return or return information under section 6103 if such request is made in accordance with the requirements of such section; or
(3)by the Secretary of the Treasury as a consequence of the implementation of a change in tax policy.
(d)Penalty
Any person who willfully violates subsection (a) or fails to report under subsection (b) shall be punished upon conviction by a fine in any amount not exceeding $5,000, or imprisonment of not more than 5 years, or both, together with the costs of prosecution.

(e)Applicable person
For purposes of this section, the term “applicable person” means—
(1)the President, the Vice President, any employee of the executive office of the President, and any employee of the executive office of the Vice President; and
(2)any individual (other than the Attorney General of the United States) serving in a position specified in section 5312 of title 5, United States Code.

160 3.1K 7K