"Only in a police state is the job of the policeman easy."

-Orson Welles.

Reining in the Courts – Jay Cost Thomas Bell offers a Madisonian critique of judicial interference in the separation of powers.

Really excited to see this thoughtful review of my new book by Jay Cost at Law and Liberty

lawliberty.org/book-review/...

Well past impeachment territory, but never too late.

It’s impossible to be a broken record on how disastrous Chadha has been for constitutional politics. Fundamentally flawed. Chapter 2 of my book is dedicated to eviscerating the Court’s decision in Chadha, which is just emblematic of its general approach to SoP.

www.amazon.com/Constitution...

Really excited to get this out into the world.

2/ First, when Congress has legislated in response to national problems, the Roberts Court has repeatedly either struck it down or interpreted it into a nullity. Congress gave us the Voting Rights Act and its reauthorizations; the Court gave us Shelby County, Brnovich, etc.

I mean.... some institutions have a culture on this issue that is impossible to fight. I have small classes and repeat students and a casual campus culture and so I stopped fighting to go by professor. Right out of grad school I wanted to go by professor to have some social distance, but less so now

This is a really bad comparison!

If you'd like to read a better account of the separation of powers—understood as a political architecture rather than a legalistic doctrine—check out @trivesbell.bsky.social's wonderful new book.

Thanks, Pat! I hope you enjoy it.

This is a really excellent book -- anyone interested in American politics should give it a serious read.

My intellectual debts are clear. My teacher @jktulis.bsky.social has taught me how to think about American politics more than anyone else. I have also benefitted immensely from the work and feedback of @joshchafetz.bsky.social and George Thomas, as well as Gary Jacobsohn, and H.W. Perry.

The book applies its analytical framework to case studies on the legislative veto, executive agreements, the appointments process, and congressional oversight and impeachment to demonstrate that institutional conflict rather than legal determinacy is an essential feature of the constitutional design

I argue that the Supreme Court's separation of jurisprudence often enforces the separation of powers for its own sake, which represents an inversion of means and ends. Non-judicialized conflict is essential for the polity to achieve its unlimited and politically-contingent ends.

The Constitution of Conflict: How the Supreme Court Undermines the Separation of Powers (Constitutional Thinking) The Constitution of Conflict: How the Supreme Court Undermines the Separation of Powers (Constitutional Thinking) [Bell, Thomas] on Amazon.com. *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers. The Constitution of Conflict: How the Supreme Court Undermines the Separation of Powers (Constitutional Thinking)

Today is the release date for my new book The Constitution of Conflict, published by @univpressofkansas.bsky.social! The book argues that the separation of powers is better understood as a political architecture than a judicially-enforced legal doctrine.

www.amazon.com/Constitution...

🎉🥳 Coming soon, with @trivesbell.bsky.social.

My friend Tim designed this sign. We’re printing yard signs where we live in Galesburg, IL. Feel free to print where you live, or to share widely on social media. This is a scandal.

We’re better than this. The rule of law matters.

Super minor point, but I hate the use of the word “convictional” in articles like these as it seems like an empty vessel.

Truth