Scholar

Josh Pasek

H-index: 31
Political science 40%
Communication & Media Studies 23%
joshpasek.com
Hence why, in our 2020 book, we found that status threat was empirically indistinguishable from racial animus.

global.oup.com/academic/pro...

by Jacob T. LevyReposted by Josh Pasek

jacobtlevy.bsky.social
Here's a basic rule of legal interpretation, as applicable to the US Constitution as to ordinary statutes: later additions have priority over earlier provisions in the event of conflict.

The Fifteenth Amendment, including Section 2, is later in time than the Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1.
phillewis.bsky.social
“The Defense Department has confiscated the badges of the Pentagon reporters from virtually every major media organization in America,” the Pentagon Press Association said

Oct. 15, 2025
PENTAGON PRESS ASSOCIATION
STATEMENT
Today, the Defense Department confiscated the badges of the Pentagon reporters from virtually every major media organization in America. It did this because reporters would not sign onto a new media policy over its implicit threat of criminalizing national security reporting and exposing those who sign it to potential prosecution.
The Pentagon Press Association's members are still committed to reporting on the U.S. military. But make no mistake, today, Oct. 15, 2025 is a dark day for press freedom that raises concerns about a weakening U.S. commitment to transparency in governance, to public accountability at the Pentagon and to free speech for all.
PPA
joshpasek.com
🎶“It’s beginning to look a lot like feudalism..”🎶
atrupar.com
Bessent: "No kings equals no paychecks"
joshpasek.com
Amendment 14, Section 5:

The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Amendment 15, Section 2:

The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

This is plain text!
sifill.bsky.social
This entire argument by Louisiana and the conservatives questions are premised on an erasure of Congress’ enforcement power under the 14th & 15th Amendments.

Literally swinging for the fences to wipe out the premise for the legitimacy of Congress’ power to enact civil rights statutes.
jamellebouie.net
“the constitution forbids race conscious remedies” would be news to the people who wrote the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments
mcpli.bsky.social
Griem goes there, arguing in response to Justice Jackson that there can be no race-conscious remedy absent a finding of intentional discrimination.
sifill.bsky.social
This entire argument by Louisiana and the conservatives questions are premised on an erasure of Congress’ enforcement power under the 14th & 15th Amendments.

Literally swinging for the fences to wipe out the premise for the legitimacy of Congress’ power to enact civil rights statutes.
mcpli.bsky.social
Griem goes there, arguing in response to Justice Jackson that there can be no race-conscious remedy absent a finding of intentional discrimination.
joshpasek.com
As an individual, this makes sense.

But the question that gets messy is when you can justify institutions no longer treating what the Supreme Court says as a legal order.

You can’t do that just because you expect them to violate the social contract, they need to have blatantly violated it.
joshpasek.com
I think there’s a strong case for this, but I also think it’s debatable in a way where say overriding birthright citizenship would not be subjected to debate.

I think the evidence en mass suggests bad faith, my point is the difficulty of actually drawing a clean line.
joshpasek.com
We can identify SC bad faith if:

1) rulings that are being made are facially incompatible with Constitution

2) rulings are sufficiently self-contradictory with so little justification that any reasonable actor would conclude

No obvious case of 1, strong case for 2 but determination is subjective
joshpasek.com
The real question is how one decides when the Supreme Court crosses the line.

But because the goal is Constitutional interpretation in the face of ambiguity, there is just about always a claim for legitimacy.

How then can we identify bad faith?

I see two approaches
joshpasek.com
So let me get today's news clear -- Antifa is almost 100 years old and a continuous tradition from Weimar Germany and we just arrested one of its founders's girlfriends? I guess that is hypothetically possible...
rtodkelly.bsky.social
"the girlfriend of one of the founders of antifa"
catiehausman.bsky.social
Job posting!

apply.interfolio.com/173947

Assistant or Associate Professor of Global Environmental Policy

University of Michigan-Ann Arbor: School for Environment and Sustainability

Come be a Wolverine! In Tree Town! In the Mitten!
Apply - Interfolio {{$ctrl.$state.data.pageTitle}} - Apply - Interfolio
apply.interfolio.com
joshpasek.com
Now, if we can only find a way to use it in an instrumental variable analysis.

by Josh PasekReposted by Brendan Nyhan

joshpasek.com
How should university boards prepare?

- Strategize in advance (could happen here)
- Leverage internal expertise (strategize with political scientists, public policy scholars and law faculty)
- Respond collectively and support one another
-Stay true to the mission

This is the real fiduciary duty!
joshpasek.com
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation

www.archives.gov/founding-doc...
atrupar.com
DURBIN: You won't even say whether you talked to the WH about this?

BONDI: I'm not going to discuss any internal conversations with you

D: They're going to transfer TX Guard troops to the state of Illinois. What's the rationale?

B: I wish you loved Chicago as much as you hate President Trump
atrupar.com
DURBIN: You won't even say whether you talked to the WH about this?

BONDI: I'm not going to discuss any internal conversations with you

D: They're going to transfer TX Guard troops to the state of Illinois. What's the rationale?

B: I wish you loved Chicago as much as you hate President Trump
thomaszimmer.bsky.social
ICYMI yesterday:

I wrote about Ezra Klein, Ta-Nehisi Coates, the struggle to define the boundaries of what is acceptable in America – and why democratic citizens have an obligation to hold the line on what we consider beyond the pale.

Some thoughts from my new piece:

🧵
Where Is the Line?
On Ezra Klein, Ta-Nehisi Coates, and the struggle to define the boundaries of what is acceptable in America
steady.page

by Josh PasekReposted by Greg Linden

joshpasek.com
At this point, the experts largely agree that the lack of fascism in a formal sense is because they lack the capacity, not the intent.

Being sober about both where we are and where we aren’t is important, however, because American institutions still have the capacity to reverse the backsliding.
guygrossman.bsky.social
I agree with Tom - we live in an electoral authoritarian regime. It has some fascist elements (e.g., disappearing migrants; masked agents detaining individuals without warrants), but the Trump regime is not (at least, yet) in a full fascist mode.
joshpasek.com
I want to hope that this is just a coincidence, but those hopes feel less and less likely given the timeline we appear to be on.

Worth a reminder that most people from both parties oppose political violence. It is critical for all of us to uphold that norm.

by Guy GrossmanReposted by Josh Pasek

guygrossman.bsky.social
I agree with Tom - we live in an electoral authoritarian regime. It has some fascist elements (e.g., disappearing migrants; masked agents detaining individuals without warrants), but the Trump regime is not (at least, yet) in a full fascist mode.
joelhs.bsky.social
I was told not to teach a class on the intellectual histories of Zionism and Anti-Zionism next year - not because they doubted I could teach it fairly, but because it would attract too many politicians scrutinizing the syllabus.

A society where that is a valid fear is no longer fully democratic.

References

Fields & subjects

Updated 1m