1) Those judging the Tx Abortion Law should consult Scalia’s justly famous dissent in Morrison v. Olson. Railing against the Independent Prosecutor Law, Scalia rants against giving to one who lacks governmental supervision the power to seek punitive sanctions against individuals
2) Tx Abortion Law is an Independent Prosecutor on steroids. Scalia’s dissent argued that only the regular processes of government with layers of supervision should determine how and when governmental power is brought to bear on individuals, safeguards the IC law lacked.
3) Unleashed by Texas is not just one “independent counsel” but potentially millions of free actors, empowered to go after fellow citizens for motivations, some benign, some vindictive, some god knows what.`
4) Yes, these are not formally criminal actions & all of us can be civilly sued by fellow citizens. Here, however, the draconian sanctions give self-appointed guardians, unconstrained by government officials, extraordinary coercive powers. The $10K penalty is a minimum amount
5) it is not “$10,000” for each act of assisting a woman to have an abortion. It is “not less than” $10,000. Special venue rules allow suits to be brought before judges all over Texas so it should not be difficult to find one who believes that right fine is $10 Million or more.
6) Three Justices will strike down the TX law because it is clearly invalid under Roe and Casey. Six others should strike it down because it profoundly violates due process to grant self-selected individuals near prosecutorial powers without meaningful supervision or limits.
7). Texas’s unprecedented & novel intrusion into personal liberty will admittedly require some novelty in judicial remediation. Justice Scalia would have been fit to the task. Will any of the current Justices be able to rise to the occasion?
Steve Sachs is right that Scalia’s opinion in Morrison v. Olson is about federal executive power. But Scalia ends “I conclude my discussion by considering the effect of the Act upon the fairness of the process [those subject to it] receive.” Those concerns apply to the Tx Law
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
1) Last night on Chris Hayes show, I noted that only 3, not 4 GOP Senators were potentially needed to call witnesses since a 50-50 tie would be broken by presiding officer CJ John Roberts. Later, Lawrence O’Donnell disagreed. He’s wrong. drive.google.com/file/d/1ZTEawu…
2) He’s right that Roberts would want to follow in Rehnquist’s footsteps from Clinton’s trial, and decide as little as possible. But if a vote were tied, he would have no real choice. That is the job of the presiding officer. There were no tie votes in the Clinton trial.
3)In the Andrew Johnson trial, CJ Chase did vote to break ties. In a presidential trial the CJ stands in the shoes of the VP, and the VP votes to break ties. I agree with L.O’D that Roberts hopes there are no ties. But if 50 Senators vote to hear Bolton he has no choice.
1) An argument against a House vote to impeach is that McConnell would prevent the matter from even coming before the Senate (see "Garland"). I'm not sure that is his decision. The Constitution makes the Chief Justice the presiding officer in presidential impeachments.
2) Once the House votes Articles, the CJ's authority may be engaged. The House managers would submit to the CJ a proposed time schedule; the presidents lawyers would respond. Acting like a trial judge, the CJ could set the date and time certain for the Senate trial to commence.
3) I don't mean to overstate the CJ's role. Once the Senate trial is in session, the president's lawyers could move for "summary judgment" and the Senate majority might be able to vote w/o further process.
Only twice have CJ's presided: CJ Chase for Andrew Johnson and Rehnquist
1)WH COS Mulveny: Trump will NEVER release his tax returns saying “Keep in mind that that’s an issue that was already litigated during the election.” But if the election were a referendum on Trump’s tax returns, the nation cast 3 million more votes for his opponents. ...
2)The electoral system makes Trump the lawful president; bills he signs are law, those he vetos are not. But having receive millions of fewer votes means the "people" did not "litigate" issues like release of his tax returns in his favor.
3) One of the few good things about the electoral system is that it reminds us that the president is merely one officer in a constitutional government, unlike the "president for life" installed as the embodiment of "the people" by plebiscite in some authoritarian republic.
1) Today's decision in Zervos v. Trump holds that president can be sued in state court for non-official conduct, citing Clinton v. Jones which held President Clinton not right to postpone a civil suit against him in federal court.
2) Trump and dissent note in Clinton case Court said STATE court suits "may implicate concerns that are quite different." President should not be under the control of state courts. But should that make a difference? Here is why not:
3) There are two protections of presidents that reduce worry about hostile state courts. (1) Cong can by law regulate state court suits against presidents. (2) Any oppressive state court order against a president can be reviewed by the US Sup Ct
1)The Test: If House Dems are serious about oversight of Trump, they will retain counsel to ask the first 2 hours of questions of each witness. Endless, uncoordinated 5 minute showoff rounds are not designed to find the truth.
2) If I said to a client: "My 2 hr. plan for examining the other side's key witness is to have 24 lawyers question her for 5 minutes each." That would be a former client. Even before I said they would not pay any attention to each other's questions or the answers..
3)Most Members of Congress do not have the time to prepare adequately and to be able to revise their questions to follow up on responses. Brandeis could not be effective in 5 minute rounds. Same questions are asked by Member after Member when serious issues need to be explored