Rachel Shelden's avatar

Rachel Shelden

@rachelshelden.bsky.social

1358 followers 509 following 264 posts

Historian & Director of the Richards Civil War Era Center at Penn State. I study U.S. political, cultural, & constitutional history. Writing a book about the political activities & political culture of 19th-century Supreme Court justices. rachelshelden.com

Reposted by Rachel Shelden

Eric Rauchway's avatar Eric Rauchway @rauchway.bsky.social
[ View ]

Historians try not to invoke LBJ, whose decision to step down led to catastrophe, or Lincoln, whose choice of unifying veep was even worse, challenge

10 replies 16 reposts 92 likes

Rachel Shelden's avatar Rachel Shelden @rachelshelden.bsky.social
[ View ]

The Brethren is very fun especially if you enjoy a scathing portrayal of Justice Burger (though factually it is probably a little over the top). I think Brad Snyder’s new-ish book on Felix Frankfurter (scholarly but very readable) is great and relevant to the moment: wwnorton.com/books/978132...

1 replies 0 reposts 4 likes

Rachel Shelden's avatar Rachel Shelden @rachelshelden.bsky.social
[ View ]

And hide behind judicial independence when, in 1789, Congress designed the federal judiciary so that the justices would ride circuit and therefore be forced into exactly that kind of experience. (A system that lasted until 1891!)

0 replies 0 reposts 10 likes

Reposted by Rachel Shelden

Rachel Shelden's avatar Rachel Shelden @rachelshelden.bsky.social
[ View ]

IMHO, every piece on #SCOTUS's recent radical decisions (especially those invoking "history and tradition") should emphasize the unprecedented nature of the Court's power in our history--power that was never intended by the founding generation these justices claim to revere. /fin

0 replies 14 reposts 53 likes

Rachel Shelden's avatar Rachel Shelden @rachelshelden.bsky.social
[ View ]

Probably natural to make comparisons to the Dred Scott Court as the standard bearer for awfulness. But also important to remember Dred Scott was ignored by several states in 1857, & then by the Republican Congress during the Civil War. Most 19th c Americans did not subscribe to judicial supremacy 2/

1 replies 17 reposts 55 likes

Rachel Shelden's avatar Rachel Shelden @rachelshelden.bsky.social
[ View ]

Whether you agree as to whether this is the most dangerous Court since Taney's (the case @kevinmkruse.bsky.social makes here) there's another key point about the comparison:

Taney's Court had only a fraction of the power and authority over American politics & society that Roberts' Court does 1/

4 replies 59 reposts 169 likes

Rachel Shelden's avatar Rachel Shelden @rachelshelden.bsky.social
[ View ]

I say this to my history students every semester. Lawyers do not have a monopoly on law, courts, & especially the Constitution--despite how often they are told otherwise. It may be in the best interest of lawyers to claim that unique authority; it's in everyone else's best interest not to let them.

2 replies 12 reposts 53 likes

Rachel Shelden's avatar Rachel Shelden @rachelshelden.bsky.social
[ View ]

Same--and I spend more than half of the course on constitutional history *outside* the Supreme Court.

0 replies 0 reposts 4 likes

Reposted by Rachel Shelden

Gautham FC's avatar Gautham FC @gauthamrao.bsky.social
[ View ]

Before SCOTUS' ruling, here's our historian's brief which argues there is no basis in founding era history for the idea that presidents should enjoy immunity. In fact, the founders believed that presidents should be accountable under the rule of law. www.brennancenter.org/our-work/res...

2 replies 40 reposts 75 likes

Reposted by Rachel Shelden

Gautham FC's avatar Gautham FC @gauthamrao.bsky.social
[ View ]

"agencies have no special competence in resolving statutory ambiguities. Courts do." ❌ "The Framers anticipated that courts would often confront statutory ambiguities and expected that courts would resolve them by exercising independent legal judgment." ❌ This is a fictional rendering of history.

3 replies 14 reposts 72 likes

Rachel Shelden's avatar Rachel Shelden @rachelshelden.bsky.social
[ View ]

Kate Shaw’s good piece on Loper Bright highlights the cynicism of #SCOTUS repeatedly invoking democracy & “history and tradition” to build its own power.

The history of the Court (at least from the era most of the justices care about) is of a very weak judiciary. 🗃️

www.nytimes.com/2024/06/29/o...

1 replies 18 reposts 30 likes

Reposted by Rachel Shelden

Reposted by Rachel Shelden

Seth Masket's avatar Seth Masket @smotus.bsky.social
[ View ]

@jbouie.bsky.social is correct here. We have several historical cases of a party switching nominees to save their bacon and it not working, almost none of it working.

15 replies 59 reposts 246 likes

Rachel Shelden's avatar Rachel Shelden @rachelshelden.bsky.social
[ View ]

Yes yes this! Forcing the Court to hear many more cases of this sort is such an under suggested idea. Some of the current mischief surely comes out of more control over their docket.

0 replies 0 reposts 1 likes

Rachel Shelden's avatar Rachel Shelden @rachelshelden.bsky.social
[ View ]

Hardly in the top 100 of important things to note about today’s discourse but this historian is begging you to stop saying #SCOTUS overturning Chevron is the biggest judicial power grab *since Marbury v. Madison* 🗃️

0 replies 4 reposts 18 likes

Reposted by Rachel Shelden

Reposted by Rachel Shelden

Noah Shusterman's avatar Noah Shusterman @ncshusterman.bsky.social
[ View ]

Saul Cornell is He Who Knows in these matters.

"Although the majority opinion clarifies one of the most pernicious misinterpretations of Bruen... Rahimi will leave most judges scrambling to apply Bruen’s novel approach..."

slate.com/news-and-pol...

0 replies 2 reposts 2 likes

Rachel Shelden's avatar Rachel Shelden @rachelshelden.bsky.social
[ View ]

That’s wonderful! I wasn’t sure if something more formal had developed but I’m glad to hear there is community.

0 replies 0 reposts 0 likes

Rachel Shelden's avatar Rachel Shelden @rachelshelden.bsky.social
[ View ]

Thank you! I am glad to know word of mouth is still useful!

0 replies 0 reposts 0 likes

Rachel Shelden's avatar Rachel Shelden @rachelshelden.bsky.social
[ View ]

Thanks, Patrick! Hope you’re doing well!!

0 replies 0 reposts 0 likes

Rachel Shelden's avatar Rachel Shelden @rachelshelden.bsky.social
[ View ]

🗃️ Reposting this & asking for those who do freelance/contract work: where/how do you typically find jobs? Word of mouth? Do you look for ads? If so, where?

5 replies 4 reposts 5 likes

Rachel Shelden's avatar Rachel Shelden @rachelshelden.bsky.social
[ View ]

Will definitely post something about it if I find more info!

0 replies 0 reposts 2 likes

Rachel Shelden's avatar Rachel Shelden @rachelshelden.bsky.social
[ View ]

Thank you for this, Kelly! That’s interesting to hear the editing and writing/comms work are totally distinct. Anecdotally I know several people who do “freelance writing and editing” so I would have thought they might be combined somewhere but perhaps not!

1 replies 0 reposts 0 likes

Rachel Shelden's avatar Rachel Shelden @rachelshelden.bsky.social
[ View ]

🗃️ Academic friends: is there a formal network of folks with PhDs who do freelance/contract academic writing/editing/communications work? I often see people advertising this (eg: indexing, copyediting) on social media but wondered if there is something more organized (eg: an online space/job board).

7 replies 10 reposts 21 likes

Rachel Shelden's avatar Rachel Shelden @rachelshelden.bsky.social
[ View ]

I teach it often in grad classes--it's almost always one of their favorite readings of the semester.

0 replies 0 reposts 2 likes

Reposted by Rachel Shelden

Rachel Shelden's avatar Rachel Shelden @rachelshelden.bsky.social
[ View ]

I am really sorry to hear this. I don’t run the day to day of the journal but am a senior editor and would really love to know more so I can help make the experience better. If you feel comfortable would you DM me about it?

1 replies 0 reposts 2 likes

Reposted by Rachel Shelden

Anna O Law's avatar Anna O Law @unlawfulentries.bsky.social
[ View ]

If you do historical legal research, we already have such a journal: un-gated, peer reviewed, quick turnaround, and you can cite in your home discipline's method instead of using law school Blue Book method. Please consider submitting.

3 replies 13 reposts 43 likes

Rachel Shelden's avatar Rachel Shelden @rachelshelden.bsky.social
[ View ]

Well… the answer to that is probably not what you are expecting. B/c by modern standards there was all kinds of behavior that looks corrupt today. The key is 1) the context for acceptability was different; and more importantly 2) the Court’s power was so much less. But don’t idolize the old Court!

0 replies 0 reposts 0 likes

Rachel Shelden's avatar Rachel Shelden @rachelshelden.bsky.social
[ View ]

Judicial review (the power to review constitutional cases) is not the same as judicial supremacy (ultimate authority over the Constitution). And for the first 100 years of American history few believed #SCOTUS should be entrusted with judicial supremacy. 🗃️

1 replies 1 reposts 17 likes

Rachel Shelden's avatar Rachel Shelden @rachelshelden.bsky.social
[ View ]

they didn’t reveal the massive voter fraud they claimed Republicans had engaged in but instead an extensive effort by Democrats to bribe election officials in South Carolina and Florida. 2/2 🗃️

1 replies 2 reposts 20 likes

Rachel Shelden's avatar Rachel Shelden @rachelshelden.bsky.social
[ View ]

One fun but little known fact about the election: in 1878, Democrats determined to investigate supposed Republican fraud in the election in what was known as the Potter Commission. The Commission turned up a series of coded telegrams and when an intrepid newspaperman cracked the code 1/2 🗃️

1 replies 15 reposts 29 likes

Rachel Shelden's avatar Rachel Shelden @rachelshelden.bsky.social
[ View ]

And maybe also consider whether you even need them? Maybe only in the most exceptional circumstances?

2 replies 0 reposts 4 likes

Rachel Shelden's avatar Rachel Shelden @rachelshelden.bsky.social
[ View ]

Actual conversation in my household: Kid 1: what just happened? Kid 2: the Mets scored 2 runs because the Phillies all of a sudden turned into the Mets. Kid 1: ah gotcha, so there were no hits involved.

1 replies 0 reposts 4 likes

Rachel Shelden's avatar Rachel Shelden @rachelshelden.bsky.social
[ View ]

Thank you! So glad you enjoyed the conference and hope you come back!

1 replies 0 reposts 1 likes

Rachel Shelden's avatar Rachel Shelden @rachelshelden.bsky.social
[ View ]

Fun fact: circuit riding was so entrenched in the the structure of the federal courts that it lasted in practice until Congress passed the Evarts Act of 1891, the same act that gave #SCOTUS the power to determine which cases it heard on appeal. The pairing is not a coincidence. 🗃️

0 replies 6 reposts 25 likes

Rachel Shelden's avatar Rachel Shelden @rachelshelden.bsky.social
[ View ]

So crushed not to be there! Hope we’ll get another chance to meet in person before long, Jake!

1 replies 0 reposts 2 likes

Rachel Shelden's avatar Rachel Shelden @rachelshelden.bsky.social
[ View ]

HUGE CONGRATULATIONS, Anna!! This is such exciting news!! A toast to you and General Barbecue, whose party spirit (see what I did there?) surely deserves a Madeira named for him! 🥳 🎉 🥂

1 replies 0 reposts 1 likes