Aaron Bachmann
@aaronbachmann.bsky.social
History teacher, recovering attorney, and appreciator of the Oxford comma. CLE and UVA sports.
Reposted by Aaron Bachmann
these clowns are REALLY going to say that Texas’s map - which targeted majority minority districts - was NOT discrimination on the basis of race.
But they’ll say Louisiana’s map - drawn to comply with the Voting Rights Act and give Black voters representation- DID discriminate on the basis of race
But they’ll say Louisiana’s map - drawn to comply with the Voting Rights Act and give Black voters representation- DID discriminate on the basis of race
December 4, 2025 at 11:45 PM
these clowns are REALLY going to say that Texas’s map - which targeted majority minority districts - was NOT discrimination on the basis of race.
But they’ll say Louisiana’s map - drawn to comply with the Voting Rights Act and give Black voters representation- DID discriminate on the basis of race
But they’ll say Louisiana’s map - drawn to comply with the Voting Rights Act and give Black voters representation- DID discriminate on the basis of race
Reposted by Aaron Bachmann
Texas & DOJ said that’s what was going on!
So apparently the way to stop discriminating on the basis of race is to … allow some discrimination on the basis of race when it’s to secure Republicans electoral advantage.
Just lawless partisan hackery. No fact finding deference. No legal basis.
So apparently the way to stop discriminating on the basis of race is to … allow some discrimination on the basis of race when it’s to secure Republicans electoral advantage.
Just lawless partisan hackery. No fact finding deference. No legal basis.
December 4, 2025 at 11:31 PM
Texas & DOJ said that’s what was going on!
So apparently the way to stop discriminating on the basis of race is to … allow some discrimination on the basis of race when it’s to secure Republicans electoral advantage.
Just lawless partisan hackery. No fact finding deference. No legal basis.
So apparently the way to stop discriminating on the basis of race is to … allow some discrimination on the basis of race when it’s to secure Republicans electoral advantage.
Just lawless partisan hackery. No fact finding deference. No legal basis.
Reposted by Aaron Bachmann
^ Also note the California mention!
December 4, 2025 at 11:19 PM
^ Also note the California mention!
Reposted by Aaron Bachmann
Alito's (brief) concurrence says the "impetus" for the Texas map was "partisan."
This is a response to the lower court that struck down the map, saying there's evidence of racial impetus. A big evidence was that the DOJ wrote to Texas explicitly saying they should redistrict for racial reasons.
This is a response to the lower court that struck down the map, saying there's evidence of racial impetus. A big evidence was that the DOJ wrote to Texas explicitly saying they should redistrict for racial reasons.
December 4, 2025 at 11:18 PM
Alito's (brief) concurrence says the "impetus" for the Texas map was "partisan."
This is a response to the lower court that struck down the map, saying there's evidence of racial impetus. A big evidence was that the DOJ wrote to Texas explicitly saying they should redistrict for racial reasons.
This is a response to the lower court that struck down the map, saying there's evidence of racial impetus. A big evidence was that the DOJ wrote to Texas explicitly saying they should redistrict for racial reasons.
Reposted by Aaron Bachmann
"Purcell" is not mentioned, but the majority writes that the court "improperly inserted itself" in an "active" campaign.
The map passed with just weeks to go before the filing deadline!
Basically SCOTUS is saying that means there's no judicial review possible.
The map passed with just weeks to go before the filing deadline!
Basically SCOTUS is saying that means there's no judicial review possible.
December 4, 2025 at 11:12 PM
"Purcell" is not mentioned, but the majority writes that the court "improperly inserted itself" in an "active" campaign.
The map passed with just weeks to go before the filing deadline!
Basically SCOTUS is saying that means there's no judicial review possible.
The map passed with just weeks to go before the filing deadline!
Basically SCOTUS is saying that means there's no judicial review possible.
Reposted by Aaron Bachmann
Link to all that by @stevevladeck.bsky.social: bsky.app/profile/stev...
December 4, 2025 at 11:09 PM
Link to all that by @stevevladeck.bsky.social: bsky.app/profile/stev...
Woodrow Wilson, most likely. (Tough look for our alma mater though, Jamelle).
December 3, 2025 at 11:07 PM
Woodrow Wilson, most likely. (Tough look for our alma mater though, Jamelle).
Hear hear, Justin.
December 3, 2025 at 11:01 PM
Hear hear, Justin.
Hi Prof. Freeman - has there been any thought to releasing these episodes in audio form in a podcast feed? You know, for the Back Story and Now & Then fans? 😇
November 18, 2025 at 9:53 PM
Hi Prof. Freeman - has there been any thought to releasing these episodes in audio form in a podcast feed? You know, for the Back Story and Now & Then fans? 😇
Reposted by Aaron Bachmann
This opinion makes it very clear that Trump's Justice Department screwed up badly here. Texas could've just drawn a partisan gerrymander and gotten away with it. Instead, the Justice Department (unnecessarily) injected race into it, directing Texas to draw an unconstitutional *racial* gerrymander.
November 18, 2025 at 6:52 PM
This opinion makes it very clear that Trump's Justice Department screwed up badly here. Texas could've just drawn a partisan gerrymander and gotten away with it. Instead, the Justice Department (unnecessarily) injected race into it, directing Texas to draw an unconstitutional *racial* gerrymander.
Reposted by Aaron Bachmann
Note: The court ruled that Texas violated the 14th and 15th Amendments by discriminating on the basis of race when drawing its new Republican gerrymander. So this opinion will not be fatally undermined by the Supreme Court's impending blow to the Voting Rights Act; it has an independent rationale.
November 18, 2025 at 6:47 PM
Note: The court ruled that Texas violated the 14th and 15th Amendments by discriminating on the basis of race when drawing its new Republican gerrymander. So this opinion will not be fatally undermined by the Supreme Court's impending blow to the Voting Rights Act; it has an independent rationale.
Justin - the paper of record in my town (WaPo) has become a mouthpiece for corporate interests through and through. It’s everywhere.
November 16, 2025 at 3:02 PM
Justin - the paper of record in my town (WaPo) has become a mouthpiece for corporate interests through and through. It’s everywhere.