Thread by @jedshug

Yesterday I got cursed & ratio'ed for this tweet. Now Day 2 starts with a new round of blue-check-marks making the same point that vaccination is not like abortion.
Here are two thoughts:
1) Yes, I know.
Legal arguments can turn on finding common principles in dissimilar cases;

https://twitter.com/jedshug/status/1485653680028332033

2) My goal was to build a legal argument building on one 6-3 SCOTUS decision on vaccine mandates into a case to save Roe.
I acknowledge I am being naive about the conservative Justices. But I was naive to suggest consensus or common ground or moderation or nuance on Twitter.

3/ Could I have been more explicit in the first tweet to acknowledge the different stakes? Sure. But even when I clarified in a second tweet, the ratio'ing and the nastiness only escalated:

https://twitter.com/jedshug/status/1485684039138824197?s=20

4/ Many people, including major legal commentators, made the same points:
Abortion isn't like vaccination;
In abortion, the autonomy interest is really big.
Yes!
So why not try to extend the weaker case to the stronger case for bodily autonomy?

https://twitter.com/jedshug/status/1485776359905501187?s=20

5/ Now on Day 2, Richard Painter, @RWPUSA, with almost a million followers, has making the same point - in four separate tweets this morning - that almost a million tweeters made yesterday.
Thanks.

https://twitter.com/RWPUSA/status/1485977504301080580?s=20

6/ I just want to note how Day 2 of pile-on unfolds, and I would hope that law professors would be more open to nuance that this from @RWPUSA with his 1 million followers:

https://twitter.com/RWPUSA/status/1485966706975690752?s=20