Paul Gowder

@gowder

Prof @ Northwestern law, political theorist, cat parent. Black lives matter. Profile, pubs, etc: All my books (rule of law, racial justice, platform governance) are downloadable in free open access pdf @

7,302 Following19,893 Followers7,119 Posts

Bluesky

Is this your profile?Claim it and gowder.dirty.social is yours.Claim profile

Paul Gowder@gowder· 19d

I guess you could argue that they stipulated to this stuff in order to tee up the pure legal claim that they have the power to do so notwithstanding the first amendment without having to litigate a factual dispute, but that would be a very weird strategy even for this DOJ...

Paul Gowder@gowder· 20d

Every single democrat running for Congress needs to be running "Trump just promised to double the cost of your medicine" ads from here until November

"Truth" social post from a Nazi reading:
"Effective August 1st, 2026, all Generic Drugs being brought into the United States will continue to have a TARIFF of ZERO PERCENT for a two year period of time, after which the TARIFF will be raised to 100% for a one year period of time, and 200% thereafter. This is done in order to RESHORE Generic Pharmaceutical Production into America, with a penalty to those Companies that decide not to build Plant and Equipment within the stated period of time given to them. The objective of this Policy is to protect the people of the United States. The Policy on Patented, Branded, or Innovative Drugs, which has been so successful, will remain as is. Pharmaceutical Facilities are being built, at a level never seen before, all over the United States of America. Thank you for your attention to this matter! President DONALD J. TRUMP"

Paul Gowder@gowder· 20d

NO WHY

Paul Gowder@gowder· 22d

Is there anyone else who finds this shockingly offensive? United would be perfectly capable of making charitable donations to Malala or whomever. Instead, it asks its customers to give up their frequent filer miles to bribe it to make donations in some indeterminate amount. WTF.

Paul Gowder@gowder· 24d

If you'll recall, some of us pointed out that Wurman's arguments rested on a bigoted imaginary of immigrants last year

Paul Gowder@gowder· 24d

Paul Gowder@gowder· 26d

Lol

Paul Gowder@gowder· 29d

Doing a 4 day mini-introducer to torts for some international LLM students next week and I have to apologize for Americans. (Context: Katko v. Briney is a spring gun case. Only Americans would come up with spring guns to defend MUH PROPERTY)

Paul Gowder@gowder· Jul 13

Judge Williams recognizes that the trump/irs settlement was patent collusive bullshit. Love this for America (can't wait for SCOTUS to ruin it on the shadow corruption docket) storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...

These facts lead to the inexorable conclusion that the “settlement” terms, the individuals who signed the “settlement” as well as the putative beneficiaries of the “settlement,” demonstrate a shared, unitary interest. And the unilateral revision and renunciation of the “Fund” component of the “settlement” demonstrate the fact that all
Parties were aligned, and ultimately, undifferentiated. This action was never about a party seeking judicial resolution of a legal issue or a factual dispute. The nature of the suit itself and the conduct of the Parties and counsel from its filing make plain that this was an
attempt to use the Court to provide some legitimacy to an agreement to confer immunity to people and entities affiliated with the President and to earmark billions of dollars from American taxpayers to redress grievances not defined in the law. The President may be the functional “dominus litus” of the Executive Branch, but as a party to a civil suit, he, as well as all the parties and lawyers before a court, are bound by the rules. Ensuring that our courts are used only for the express purpose created by the Constitution is the obligation of every judge and an obligation that this Court must discharge in light of the
matter before it.

Paul Gowder@gowder· Jul 11

One of these two creatures can eat basically anything except garlic, raw and possibly still wriggling. The other would die if any other species looked at it funny. Evolutionary advantage: kitty.

Paul Gowder@gowder· Jul 10

Wouldn't want any precedent that could come back to bite Trump in the ass

Paul Gowder@gowder· Jul 9

When McConnell is finally dragged out in a bag at some convenient time to maximize undemocratic power in the Republican Party, he should be remembered for the time in 2015 where he got sufficiently rolled by Obama on some budget thing that the maniacs in his own party put this poster up in dc

Paul Gowder@gowder· Jul 6

The best faculty perk is library book deliveries, but it’s a bit dangerous when you‘re in the midst of huge writing projects and also out of the office for an extended period

Paul Gowder@gowder· Jul 5

Paul Gowder@gowder· Jul 4

Paul Gowder@gowder· Jul 3

he really is gonna get himself excommunicated before this abomination of a presidency is over isn't he?

Paul Gowder@gowder· Jul 2

Today, incidentally, he'd get doxxed and fired for not running an ideologically neutral classroom (From the Wikipedia page, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joshua_... )

At the beginning of the American Civil War, Chamberlain believed the Union needed to be supported against the Confederacy by all those willing. On several occasions, Chamberlain spoke freely of his beliefs during his class, urging students to follow their hearts in regards to the war while maintaining that the cause was just.

Paul Gowder@gowder· Jul 2

You may think, "surely he can't be serious about the foreign slaves bit" but I have the book right here. The deranged interpretation of "subject to the jurisdiction" he puts in that op-ed is what he seems to think leads him to being cool with tourist slavery

Paul Gowder@gowder· Jul 2

4. Therefore the 14th amendment‘s birthright clause is for some insane reason LIMITED BY THE SCOPE OF ELIGIBILITY WHICHEVER NATURALIZATION LAWS CONGRESS HAS ENACTED (????), making Wong Kim Ark wrong (!?!??!) This is psychotically insane. For one reason, it would seem to follow that Congress could,

Paul Gowder@gowder· Jul 2

3. The 14th Amendment uses two different formulations of jurisdiction, which arguably could mean different things (sure), therefore, for **no discernible reason**, we have to read the racist naturalization acts to constrain the meaning of one of those uses

Paul Gowder@gowder· Jul 2

that proposition is obviously incoherent, but then it somehow leads to: 2. The racial restrictions in the 1870 naturalization acts are relevant in interpreting the 14th Amendment’s grant of citizenship by birth (HOW, RICHARD??? Naturalization and jus soli are DIFFERENT PATHS TO CITIZENSHIP)

Paul Gowder@gowder· Jul 2

Like, as best I can discern, his argument is as follows: 1. The U.S. didn’t adopt the british common law of citizenship by birth because, unlike the U.K., which required parliament to decide on naturalization , the U.S. required Congress to decide on naturalization (HUH WTF?)

Paul Gowder@gowder· Jul 1

Our press person managed to screenshot me in full “Christ I’m sick of having to talk about republicans”

Paul Gowder@gowder· Jun 30

soooo... did ̶G̶r̶í̶m̶a̶ ̶W̶o̶r̶m̶t̶o̶n̶g̶u̶e̶ Stephen Miller tell Trump that Kavanaugh wrote the majority opinion?

Paul Gowder@gowder· Jun 30

Alito also just fully embraces the batshit insane view that whether someone is born subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. depends on foreign countries’ law. Some foreign legislature has the opportunity to do something really funny here…

Paul Gowder@gowder· Jun 30

It’s also kind of funny that Alito and Thomas are at complete cross-purposes. There’s basically no theory of the 14th amendment that can support both this passage from Alito and Thomas’s whole “domicile” fetish.

Paul Gowder@gowder· Jun 30

Ok Clarence so explain the alien enemies act then, which seems to be premised on the supposition that foreigners regardless of whether or not they had a “domicile” here might still be loyal to their home countries. Huh? Huh? Crickets?

Paul Gowder@gowder· Jun 30

This is an… interesting interpretation of how things stood in the antebellum U.S. Does he suppose that a person could just move here and be treated, for all intents and purposes, the same as a citizen?

Paul Gowder@gowder· Jun 30

is Justice Thomas going to bother explaining how this logic works with things like the U.S.’s infamous policy of inflicting extraterritorial taxation on its citizens who live abroad?

Paul Gowder@gowder· Jun 30

Repost with alt text