Michael R. Ulrich
@michaelrulrich.bsky.social
Reposted by Michael R. Ulrich
The JAMA Summit on Firearm Violence gathered experts from medicine, policy, engineering, and community groups to develop a plan for reducing firearm harms by 2040.
Learn more in this Special Communication: ja.ma/47URrzB
Learn more in this Special Communication: ja.ma/47URrzB
November 3, 2025 at 5:17 PM
Boston area peeps: book talk tonight 7pm for FREE
Come see @irincarmon.bsky.social talk about her amazing book with my brilliant friend and colleague @azizaahmed.bsky.social tonight @harvardbookstore.bsky.social at 7pm
www.harvard.com/event/irin-c...
Come see @irincarmon.bsky.social talk about her amazing book with my brilliant friend and colleague @azizaahmed.bsky.social tonight @harvardbookstore.bsky.social at 7pm
www.harvard.com/event/irin-c...
November 3, 2025 at 8:36 PM
Boston area peeps: book talk tonight 7pm for FREE
Come see @irincarmon.bsky.social talk about her amazing book with my brilliant friend and colleague @azizaahmed.bsky.social tonight @harvardbookstore.bsky.social at 7pm
www.harvard.com/event/irin-c...
Come see @irincarmon.bsky.social talk about her amazing book with my brilliant friend and colleague @azizaahmed.bsky.social tonight @harvardbookstore.bsky.social at 7pm
www.harvard.com/event/irin-c...
‼️GET THIS BOOK‼️
Unbearable: 5 Women & the Perils of Pregnancy in America by @irincarmon.bsky.social
Grippingly illustrates how loss of humanity & dignity accompany pregnancy whether you want to give birth or not. Propulsive, insightful, & offering hope for the future bookshop.org/p/books/unbe...
Unbearable: 5 Women & the Perils of Pregnancy in America by @irincarmon.bsky.social
Grippingly illustrates how loss of humanity & dignity accompany pregnancy whether you want to give birth or not. Propulsive, insightful, & offering hope for the future bookshop.org/p/books/unbe...
Unbearable: Five Women and the Perils of Pregnancy in America
Five Women and the Perils of Pregnancy in America
bookshop.org
November 3, 2025 at 8:32 PM
‼️GET THIS BOOK‼️
Unbearable: 5 Women & the Perils of Pregnancy in America by @irincarmon.bsky.social
Grippingly illustrates how loss of humanity & dignity accompany pregnancy whether you want to give birth or not. Propulsive, insightful, & offering hope for the future bookshop.org/p/books/unbe...
Unbearable: 5 Women & the Perils of Pregnancy in America by @irincarmon.bsky.social
Grippingly illustrates how loss of humanity & dignity accompany pregnancy whether you want to give birth or not. Propulsive, insightful, & offering hope for the future bookshop.org/p/books/unbe...
Reposted by Michael R. Ulrich
Barrett - can we just say we’re clarifying Gingles (foundational precedent on the VRA) instead of modifying it?
Trump admin lawyer- sure! You do you!!! As long as we’re making it impossible to enforce the VRA!
(You do have to modify Milligan in one way tho, he acknowledges .)
Trump admin lawyer- sure! You do you!!! As long as we’re making it impossible to enforce the VRA!
(You do have to modify Milligan in one way tho, he acknowledges .)
October 15, 2025 at 4:27 PM
Barrett - can we just say we’re clarifying Gingles (foundational precedent on the VRA) instead of modifying it?
Trump admin lawyer- sure! You do you!!! As long as we’re making it impossible to enforce the VRA!
(You do have to modify Milligan in one way tho, he acknowledges .)
Trump admin lawyer- sure! You do you!!! As long as we’re making it impossible to enforce the VRA!
(You do have to modify Milligan in one way tho, he acknowledges .)
Reposted by Michael R. Ulrich
Kavanaugh is trying to articulate his concurrence. He's going to say that Section 2 isn't unconstitutional, just everything that Section 2 DOES is unconstitutional.
October 15, 2025 at 4:24 PM
Kavanaugh is trying to articulate his concurrence. He's going to say that Section 2 isn't unconstitutional, just everything that Section 2 DOES is unconstitutional.
Gorsuch: we have computers now
Big if true
Big if true
October 15, 2025 at 4:14 PM
Gorsuch: we have computers now
Big if true
Big if true
Reposted by Michael R. Ulrich
Not to be outdone, the Trump Solicitor General says you have to overturn Thornburg v Gingles, the 1982 precedent upon which all Section 2 claims are evaluated.
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.
Literally swinging for the fences to wipe out the premise for the legitimacy of Congress’ power to enact civil rights statutes.
October 15, 2025 at 3:54 PM
Not to be outdone, the Trump Solicitor General says you have to overturn Thornburg v Gingles, the 1982 precedent upon which all Section 2 claims are evaluated.
Reposted by Michael R. Ulrich
One of the most embarrassing opinions in recent Supreme Court history was Clarence Thomas insisting that when the post-slavery Congress protected “freedmen” they were protecting a “formally race-neutral category”
“the constitution forbids race conscious remedies” would be news to the people who wrote the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments
Griem goes there, arguing in response to Justice Jackson that there can be no race-conscious remedy absent a finding of intentional discrimination.
October 15, 2025 at 4:05 PM
One of the most embarrassing opinions in recent Supreme Court history was Clarence Thomas insisting that when the post-slavery Congress protected “freedmen” they were protecting a “formally race-neutral category”
Reposted by Michael R. Ulrich
Lol. that was it. He was up for like 15 minutes of humiliation, and now he's gone.
Last up is Hashim Mooppan. Deputy SG for the Trump administration.
There's no real reason for the Trump admin to be here. But there's an opportunity for racism so I guess Trump wants to be involved.
Last up is Hashim Mooppan. Deputy SG for the Trump administration.
There's no real reason for the Trump admin to be here. But there's an opportunity for racism so I guess Trump wants to be involved.
October 15, 2025 at 3:47 PM
Lol. that was it. He was up for like 15 minutes of humiliation, and now he's gone.
Last up is Hashim Mooppan. Deputy SG for the Trump administration.
There's no real reason for the Trump admin to be here. But there's an opportunity for racism so I guess Trump wants to be involved.
Last up is Hashim Mooppan. Deputy SG for the Trump administration.
There's no real reason for the Trump admin to be here. But there's an opportunity for racism so I guess Trump wants to be involved.
Reposted by Michael R. Ulrich
Throwing all the bits and pieces of the worst discrimination jurisprudence never applied to voting rights at this - racial stereotyping (?); congruence & proportionality; has to be time-bound.
We have a Court that is game. Let’s try it!
We have a Court that is game. Let’s try it!
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.
Literally swinging for the fences to wipe out the premise for the legitimacy of Congress’ power to enact civil rights statutes.
October 15, 2025 at 3:48 PM
Throwing all the bits and pieces of the worst discrimination jurisprudence never applied to voting rights at this - racial stereotyping (?); congruence & proportionality; has to be time-bound.
We have a Court that is game. Let’s try it!
We have a Court that is game. Let’s try it!
Reposted by Michael R. Ulrich
As a baby lawyer in the Reagan White House, John Roberts was writing memos arguing that violations of the Voting Rights Act should not be "too easy to prove." This is not just any legal issue that happens to come before him. This is his life's work. He just wants to finish what he started.
Inside John Roberts’ Decades-Long Crusade Against the Voting Rights Act
Roberts remains at the center of an impassioned debate about voting rights in America.
www.politico.com
October 15, 2025 at 3:41 PM
As a baby lawyer in the Reagan White House, John Roberts was writing memos arguing that violations of the Voting Rights Act should not be "too easy to prove." This is not just any legal issue that happens to come before him. This is his life's work. He just wants to finish what he started.
Reposted by Michael R. Ulrich
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
October 15, 2025 at 3:41 PM
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.
The use of “stereotyping” is to imply that race-based remedies are actually racist, presumably suggesting there are Black people in Louisiana who would not want Black representatives in their government officials
October 15, 2025 at 3:47 PM
The use of “stereotyping” is to imply that race-based remedies are actually racist, presumably suggesting there are Black people in Louisiana who would not want Black representatives in their government officials
Reposted by Michael R. Ulrich
Roberts and Alito skipped their chance to ask questions.
Sooo... what's basically happening is that the Republicans have decided to let the Democrats absolutely dog-walk Ed Greim so they can feel better about this case that they're going to lose.
Greim, meet bus, tell me how the wheels look.
Sooo... what's basically happening is that the Republicans have decided to let the Democrats absolutely dog-walk Ed Greim so they can feel better about this case that they're going to lose.
Greim, meet bus, tell me how the wheels look.
October 15, 2025 at 3:39 PM
Roberts and Alito skipped their chance to ask questions.
Sooo... what's basically happening is that the Republicans have decided to let the Democrats absolutely dog-walk Ed Greim so they can feel better about this case that they're going to lose.
Greim, meet bus, tell me how the wheels look.
Sooo... what's basically happening is that the Republicans have decided to let the Democrats absolutely dog-walk Ed Greim so they can feel better about this case that they're going to lose.
Greim, meet bus, tell me how the wheels look.
Sotomayor: do bans on literacy tests to vote sunset as well?
Subtext: y’all wanna make everything old new again, right? How far are you willing to go?
Subtext: y’all wanna make everything old new again, right? How far are you willing to go?
October 15, 2025 at 3:39 PM
Sotomayor: do bans on literacy tests to vote sunset as well?
Subtext: y’all wanna make everything old new again, right? How far are you willing to go?
Subtext: y’all wanna make everything old new again, right? How far are you willing to go?
Reposted by Michael R. Ulrich
The empty formalism used to constitutionally forbid diversity-enhancing or remedial action—that to “stop discriminating on the basis of race we must stop discriminating on the basis of race”—is possibly the most invidious trope the Roberts Court has cultivated in our modern legal culture.
October 15, 2025 at 3:19 PM
The empty formalism used to constitutionally forbid diversity-enhancing or remedial action—that to “stop discriminating on the basis of race we must stop discriminating on the basis of race”—is possibly the most invidious trope the Roberts Court has cultivated in our modern legal culture.
Isn’t there a new Netflix show on this guy?
Now we're onto the 3rd lawyer, Ed Greim. He's arguing on behalf of the white folks who believe their constitutional rights are being violated by not being allowed to overrepresent themselves in Congress. He's arguing for a straight reppeal of Section 2 of the VRA.
October 15, 2025 at 3:33 PM
Isn’t there a new Netflix show on this guy?
Reposted by Michael R. Ulrich
‼️ this was a striking moment, to me
Louisiana was basically like 'here come these Black people always asking for more' and Justice Jackson was like, 'that's not what the fuck they're asking for, they're saying: stop discriminating against us'
Louisiana was basically like 'here come these Black people always asking for more' and Justice Jackson was like, 'that's not what the fuck they're asking for, they're saying: stop discriminating against us'
Louisiana: "The plaintiffs came in and said 'we want a second majority-minority district."
KBJ: "NO THEY DID NOT. They said our votes are being dilluted."
Louisiana: "That's the same thing."
KBJ: "No it's not. ... trust me on this."
:)
KBJ: "NO THEY DID NOT. They said our votes are being dilluted."
Louisiana: "That's the same thing."
KBJ: "No it's not. ... trust me on this."
:)
October 15, 2025 at 3:29 PM
‼️ this was a striking moment, to me
Louisiana was basically like 'here come these Black people always asking for more' and Justice Jackson was like, 'that's not what the fuck they're asking for, they're saying: stop discriminating against us'
Louisiana was basically like 'here come these Black people always asking for more' and Justice Jackson was like, 'that's not what the fuck they're asking for, they're saying: stop discriminating against us'
Reposted by Michael R. Ulrich
Justice Barrett really seems to want to say the congruence and proportionality test applies to VRA sec. 2. This is hardly obvious for a 15th Amendment statute, and I would say the existing blackletter law is that it's either rational basis or at most a kind of McCulloch reasonableness.
October 15, 2025 at 3:22 PM
Justice Barrett really seems to want to say the congruence and proportionality test applies to VRA sec. 2. This is hardly obvious for a 15th Amendment statute, and I would say the existing blackletter law is that it's either rational basis or at most a kind of McCulloch reasonableness.
This may be a rare understatement from @elienyc.bsky.social
October 15, 2025 at 3:30 PM
This may be a rare understatement from @elienyc.bsky.social
Kavanaugh must not have seen the news this morning while he was reminding himself in the mirror that the Constitution is neutral and answers no questions and that he’s a good boy that everyone loves
October 15, 2025 at 3:24 PM
Kavanaugh must not have seen the news this morning while he was reminding himself in the mirror that the Constitution is neutral and answers no questions and that he’s a good boy that everyone loves
Kavanaugh has the most questions that start with or include some statement indicating everyone agrees on everything and loves everyone and he has nothing to do on the Court other than reminding everyone through binding decisions
Kavanaugh: Justice Jackson said the goal is equality, and we all agree on that completely
Is that so???
Is that so???
a bald man in a suit and tie with a pocket square that says ' a ' on it
ALT: a bald man in a suit and tie with a pocket square that says ' a ' on it
media.tenor.com
October 15, 2025 at 3:21 PM
Kavanaugh has the most questions that start with or include some statement indicating everyone agrees on everything and loves everyone and he has nothing to do on the Court other than reminding everyone through binding decisions
Kavanaugh: Justice Jackson said the goal is equality, and we all agree on that completely
Is that so???
Is that so???
a bald man in a suit and tie with a pocket square that says ' a ' on it
ALT: a bald man in a suit and tie with a pocket square that says ' a ' on it
media.tenor.com
October 15, 2025 at 3:18 PM
Kavanaugh: Justice Jackson said the goal is equality, and we all agree on that completely
Is that so???
Is that so???
Kagan: you’re relying on and using arguments used 2yrs ago in Milligan, problem being that we specifically rejected literally every single one of those arguments
October 15, 2025 at 3:15 PM
Kagan: you’re relying on and using arguments used 2yrs ago in Milligan, problem being that we specifically rejected literally every single one of those arguments
Reposted by Michael R. Ulrich
Louisiana guy "If you look at the black population in Louisiana, they're all over the place."
Again, the fundamental argument for why Louisiana (which has 6 congressional districts and is 1/3 nonwhite) should over-represent white folks is because black folks are "too spread out."
Again, the fundamental argument for why Louisiana (which has 6 congressional districts and is 1/3 nonwhite) should over-represent white folks is because black folks are "too spread out."
October 15, 2025 at 3:08 PM
Louisiana guy "If you look at the black population in Louisiana, they're all over the place."
Again, the fundamental argument for why Louisiana (which has 6 congressional districts and is 1/3 nonwhite) should over-represent white folks is because black folks are "too spread out."
Again, the fundamental argument for why Louisiana (which has 6 congressional districts and is 1/3 nonwhite) should over-represent white folks is because black folks are "too spread out."