iiinova — where your digital self keeps evolving

Reposted by Rachel Shelden

Stephen West @stephenwest.bsky.social · 30/09/2026

Pity poor Hannibal Hamlin - and the course of the nation's history www.loc.gov/resource/lpr...

Banner reading "Lincoln and Johnson Club" with a beardless portrait of Lincoln.
It was previously used in 1860. The name Hamlin has been cut out and a patch with the name Johnson sewn in.

2144

Rachel Shelden @rachelshelden.bsky.social · 29/09/2026

Hooray! 🎉 Can’t wait to get my copy!

010

Rachel Shelden @rachelshelden.bsky.social · 16/09/2026

Terrific review of SUPREMACY by @nikobowie.bsky.social and @daphnarenan.bsky.social alongside my book, THE POLITICAL SUPREME COURT:

Picture of this quotation from Pema Levy’s article “How the Supreme Court seized power to rule over the rest of us”:

“As Bowie, Renan, and Shelden show, this is not how its always been, or how it's supposed to be. To take back their power, the people must simply demand it.”

212550

Rachel Shelden @rachelshelden.bsky.social · 10/09/2026

Many thanks for teaching this piece! Honored to be among such brilliant company.

141

Reposted by Rachel Shelden

Gautham Rao (pronounced: Knicks in 5) @gauthamrao.bsky.social · 04/09/2026

Here’s my op-ed on Chief Justice John Roberts whitewashed history of President and Chief Justice William Howard Taft. Roberts adoration of Taft’s “restraint” conveniently omits Taft’s racism, refusal to condemn lynching, and embrace of Lost Causism. That’s no accident. share.inquirer.com/IcPlmx

share.inquirer.com

Will the real William Howard Taft please stand up?

Chief Justice John Roberts penned an incomplete, but revealing, tribute to former President and Chief Justice William Howard Taft.

23485179

Rachel Shelden @rachelshelden.bsky.social · 08/09/2026

If you're in the area, hope you'll join us tonight!

053

Rachel Shelden @rachelshelden.bsky.social · 05/09/2026

Missed this great piece from @gauthamrao.bsky.social yesterday. More generally, one thing justices are bad at is telling histories of their predecessors. Look no further than this bananas 1954 Earl Warren address on his “enduring admiration for” Roger Taney archives.dickinson.edu/sites/defaul...

archives.dickinson.edu

1130

Reposted by Rachel Shelden

jamelle @jamellebouie.net · 02/09/2026

i think the "flyover country deserves representation" is a low-key strong talking point. "we don't want a court dominated by harvard and yale."

953248416

Reposted by Rachel Shelden

Noah Rosenblum @narosenblum.bsky.social · 02/09/2026

Crushing your political opponents when they entrench themselves in the judiciary is very much part of “our history and tradition.”

07020

Reposted by Rachel Shelden

Claire E. Aubin @ceaubin.com · 01/09/2026

Truly nobody is doing it like @uncpress.bsky.social and @sonyabonczek.bsky.social - I am so excited to read all of these.

4489

Rachel Shelden @rachelshelden.bsky.social · 24/08/2026

Boston area friends: I'll be in conversation with Peter Canellos & Kent Greenfield about the historic & current SCOTUS on SEPT 8 as part of the Cambridge Forum's first in-person event since before the pandemic! Join us at 7pm at the First Parish on Harvard Square. (Free & open to the public.)

eventbrite.com

Above the Fray? Rethinking the Supreme Court's Independence

Was the Supreme Court ever what we thought it was?

030

Reposted by Rachel Shelden

Jack Rakove @jrakove.bsky.social · 17/08/2026

As a serious problem of constitutional design or correction, this cartoon is a wonderful prompt, especially when the justices conjure up novel doctrines from who knows what source to justify unsettling established norms and expectations.

1197

Reposted by Rachel Shelden

Can’t Stop Twinkling 💕💚 @proftolson.bsky.social · 10/08/2026

Book is out in three days. THREE DAYS! Read the excerpt or pre-order your copy. Details below.

11910

Rachel Shelden @rachelshelden.bsky.social · 05/08/2026

A veritable potpourri of parties!!

120

Rachel Shelden @rachelshelden.bsky.social · 04/08/2026

I think every student I've ever had is familiar with the expression I'm making in this photo 😆

Pic of Rachel Shelden in conversation with booksellers at SIBA/NAIBA next to a table with copies of The Political Supreme Court. Other folks chatting in the background.

0132

Reposted by Rachel Shelden

UNC Press @uncpress.bsky.social · 03/08/2026

He was kind enough to let us snag a photo!

051

Reposted by Rachel Shelden

Linda Holmes @lindaholmes.bsky.social · 02/08/2026

I am begging you not to believe gazillionaire baseball owners when they tell you Skubal going to the Dodgers means we need a salary cap. Competitive balance is not the reason they want a salary cap. They just want to spend less, and with more predictability, on total payroll. That is all.

271151269

Reposted by Rachel Shelden

Hester Blum @hesterblum.bsky.social · 31/07/2026

1. @robdelaney.bsky.social is the best read and smartest person in Hollywood/London 2. The dizzying adrenaline of talking about Moby-Dick with him every day was amazing and I think is contagious if you subscribe to the podcast?!? 3. Our digressions are EPIC and rival Melville's 4. 🐳 4 life

54418

Rachel Shelden @rachelshelden.bsky.social · 25/07/2026

It remains difficult even for graduate students, who are often driven by a source base, rather than a question. But the key to a good dissertation is a research question that shapes methods & sources. Without it, you end up with a lot of “isn’t this interesting?” projects.

1190

Reposted by Rachel Shelden

Anthony Michael Kreis @anthonymkreis.bsky.social · 24/07/2026

In my historical methods training, I was always taught “we start with a historical question.” I would never use “I’m testing a hypothesis” in my work. I might have a working theory or a working hypothesis, but I’m certainly never *testing* it. That’s ripe for cherry-picked, law office history.

1240346

Reposted by Rachel Shelden

Stephen West @stephenwest.bsky.social · 18/07/2026

I'm really looking forward to @rachelshelden.bsky.social's book, The Political Supreme Court, which will unpack how politicians, the public - and the justices themselves - once understood the court as a political institution, and how and why that changed in the 20th century.

1294

Reposted by Rachel Shelden

Alan Allport @alanallport.bsky.social · 15/07/2026

It ought never to be forgotten that it’s deeply deeply weird for 21st century American public policy questions to revolve around interpretations of the history of 13th century England.

318316

Reposted by Rachel Shelden

Julian Davis Mortenson @jdmortenson.bsky.social · 14/07/2026

Amidst a highly charged 1792 debate over how to implement the constitution‘s Militia Clauses, Madison moves “to delegate this power to the President of the United States” during congressional recess.

142

Rachel Shelden @rachelshelden.bsky.social · 13/07/2026

You really have to wonder what Matt Yglesias thinks of the political antislavery movement.

2121

Reposted by Rachel Shelden

Ben Railton @americanstudier.bsky.social · 12/07/2026

Here it is, my 284th #ScholarSunday thread of great public scholarly writing & work, podcast episodes, new & forthcoming books from the past week. Add more below, share as widely as possible, & enjoy, all! 🗃️ + blackwhiteandread.com/scholarsunda...

blackwhiteandread.com

#ScholarSunday Thread 284 (7/12/26) – Black and White and Read All Over

35038

Reposted by Rachel Shelden

Colson Whitehead @colsonwhitehead.com · 10/07/2026

Me: AI sucks, it’s hilarious how much it sucks! The World: Here’s an AI poster for your event...

2049163

Reposted by Rachel Shelden

Andrea Scoseria Katz @andreascoseriakatz.bsky.social · 10/07/2026

@janemanners.bsky.social and I shared some thoughts on @justsecurity.org on the uses and misuses of history on the Court's recent Slaughter decision. Whatever we want to say about the history of officer removal, it's not, as CJ Roberts put it, "lost to history." t.co/SoejegGfxM

t.co

https://www.justsecurity.org/145132/lost-history-slaugther-cook-scotus/

0157

Reposted by Rachel Shelden

Allen Sumrall @asumrall.bsky.social · 10/07/2026

One of my favorite things to tell lawyers about is how Marbury was cited only twice (I think?) until Cooper v. Aaron. It wasn’t until the Burger Court that the “say what the law is” language was invoked for what the judiciary’s role is/should be.

1101

Rachel Shelden @rachelshelden.bsky.social · 10/07/2026

Whenever I talk about the political nature of the Supreme Court in the 19th c., I get this kind of response. But the idea that Marbury v. Madison somehow made the Supreme Court apolitical is a well-cultivated myth, honed to perfection at the end of the 19th c. (I tell that story in the book, too.)

3111

Reposted by Rachel Shelden

Jay Willis @jaywillis.net · 10/07/2026

Next time you hear about a sportsbook’s commitment to responsible gaming I encourage you to remember FanDuel sending a user who was down $1.5 MILLION a fun little thank-you clip of Bryce Harper wishing the guy an “extra special Thanksgiving.”

inquirer.com

FanDuel sent a personal message from Phillies star Bryce Harper to a customer with a gambling addiction

Terry Thompson lost $1.5 million on bets he placed with FanDuel. The company gave him VIP treatment — including a personalized video message from the Phillies' All-Star first baseman.

633963

Rachel Shelden @rachelshelden.bsky.social · 09/07/2026

It's true! The Supreme Court was a political institution by design & in practice during the nation's first century. And you can read all about it when my book is out in October with @uncpress.bsky.social

1215

Reposted by Rachel Shelden

TPM @talkingpointsmemo.com · 30/06/2026

Today’s Supreme Court justices insist that they are not “politicians in robes” and merely act as umpires calling “balls and strikes.” But for the first 100 years of the nation, members of the Court were actively and openly involved in partisan politics.

talkingpointsmemo.com

For Most of Its History, the Supreme Court Didn’t Pretend to Be Apolitical

Today’s Supreme Court justices insist that they are not “politicians in robes”...

36518

Rachel Shelden @rachelshelden.bsky.social · 30/06/2026

Reposting after a miserable decision day. SCOTUS history can't fix our modern problems but it can remind us how the Court once operated--as an openly political body, regulated by Congress, that drew its authority not from judicial supremacy, but from extensive interaction with the American people 🗃️

13912

Reposted by Rachel Shelden

Quinta Jurecic @qjurecic.bsky.social · 30/06/2026

2 more thoughts on birthright: 1. The movement to overturn Roe and Humphrey's Executor was built over decades. It took an enormous amount of effort to manufacture that sense of scholarly viability (see: Teles, Hollis-Brusky). The right got 5-4 on birthright with a sloppy last-minute scramble

151709433

Reposted by Rachel Shelden

Chris Hayes @chrislhayes.bsky.social · 30/06/2026

Jesus, three dissenting votes on birthright just might be the most insane part of this court's entire awful term.

1603937633

Rachel Shelden @rachelshelden.bsky.social · 30/06/2026

In honor of the last regular decision day of this appalling #SCOTUS term, @talkingpointsmemo.com has an adapted excerpt from my forthcoming book, The Political Supreme Court. Put it in your pocket for the next time someone tells you the justices are apolitical or calling balls & strikes.

talkingpointsmemo.com

For Most of Its History, the Supreme Court Didn’t Pretend to Be Apolitical

Today’s Supreme Court justices insist that they are not “politicians in robes”...

04422

Reposted by Rachel Shelden

Jonathan Gienapp @jgienapp.bsky.social · 30/06/2026

One of the most incredible things I have ever worked on: Recently discovered documents, written by John Dickinson in 1775, that reveal his secret and previously unknown efforts to prevent the American Revolution. Now featured in the New York Times. www.nytimes.com/2026/06/30/u...

nytimes.com

A Founder’s Previously Unknown Attempt to Avert the Revolutionary War

11333104

Reposted by Rachel Shelden

Steve Vladeck @stevevladeck.bsky.social · 30/06/2026

Me this morning on the biggest news out of #SCOTUS yesterday (Slaughter); how to think about the news we expect out of the Court today (including, but not limited to, birthright citizenship); and why it matters that the term doesn't actually end when the justices step of the bench later this a.m.:

stevevladeck.com

236. Three Thoughts Heading into the Last Decision Day of the Term

A quick post reflecting on (some of) the news the Supreme Court made on Monday and (some of) the news we expect from the justices later today.

19485147

Reposted by Rachel Shelden

Jay Willis @jaywillis.net · 29/06/2026

As bad as the six-justice conservative supermajority has been, the fact that the Supreme Court’s mail-in ballots case was only 5-4 underscores how much worse things can get. If Trump for whatever reason gets to replace a liberal justice in 2027 or 2028, there will be five votes for stuff like this.

817946

Reposted by Rachel Shelden

Steve Vladeck @stevevladeck.bsky.social · 29/06/2026

There's no sugar-coating Slaughter. It's an enormously important ruling (far more important than the other three decisions #SCOTUS handed down today). It's a huge win for Trump/the executive. And it's going to have massive ramifications for the functioning of the government long after Trump is gone.

18536531325

Reposted by Rachel Shelden

Josh Chafetz @joshchafetz.bsky.social · 29/06/2026

I will once again remind folks that a very sizable chunk of what looks like Congress not doing anything to push back against the president is in fact a consequence of the Court disabling/destroying all the ways Congress has tried to push back.

1193829863

Reposted by Rachel Shelden

jamelle @jamellebouie.net · 29/06/2026

in their forthcoming book, @nikobowie.bsky.social and Daphna Renan make a very persuasive case that Lost Cause-ism was a powerful influence on Taft’s views of judicial and executive power. It was important, IOW, to push back on the radical Reconstruction congresses.

12879171

Reposted by Rachel Shelden

Jay Willis @jaywillis.net · 23/06/2026

The silly little ritual of Supreme Court opinion days is a perfect illustration of the justices’ self-absorption. “We’re gonna decide cases but it’s a SURPRISE which ones, so just keep refreshing this browser tab to find out who still has civil rights!” Profoundly stupid institution. I loathe it.

715197983

Rachel Shelden @rachelshelden.bsky.social · 20/06/2026

I know it’s just an advanced reader copy, but look at this beauty!! Thank you so much for sending, @sonyabonczek.bsky.social! (Sonya’s the one to ask if you’re looking for one!)

Picture of advanced reader copy of The Political Supreme Court: A Forgotten History by Rachel A. Shelden standing upright on a bookshelf next to an Abraham Lincoln bobble head.

820039

Rachel Shelden @rachelshelden.bsky.social · 19/06/2026

Incredibly grateful to @gauthamrao.bsky.social for this!! Can’t wait until my copy arrives!

0130

Reposted by Rachel Shelden

Connor Ewing @cmewing.bsky.social · 11/06/2026

Also: from the convention through ratification Federalists argued precisely this—that national power would enlist state structures. It was a concession to Anti-Federalists (see Campbell's 2013 YLJ) but one borne of capacity constraints that are absolutely essential to understanding the founding.

161

Reposted by Rachel Shelden

Anthony Michael Kreis @anthonymkreis.bsky.social · 11/06/2026

I’ve read Prof. Wurman’s new book intro: americanmind.org/salvo/our-re... The second paragraph makes a claim that is fairly common, but inaccurate. It is worth highlighting because it’ll come up in court reform convos. He says, the “Act of Settlement of 1701, grant[ed] lifetime tenure to judges.”

americanmind.org

Our Revolutionary Constitution

The emerging 18th-century British constitution of legislative sovereignty and supremacy led directly to the American Revolution.

34212