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;
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:
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?
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.
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:
What could Garland do to investigate Trump for January 6th?
IMHO, the only step for Garland is to appoint a special counsel (a Mueller-type).
And I think that's the only way Garland would go, termperamentally.
It says a lot that he hasn't/won't. 1/ law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/28/60…
2/ An investigation into Trump, Biden's once and future political opponent, checks both reg boxes:
a) "conflict of interest...or other extraordinary circumstances; and
(b) That under the circumstances, it would be in the public interest to appoint an outside Special Counsel"
3/ Because Garland has not yet appointed a special counsel, he is unlikely to do so. It takes time to find a counsel, assemble a team, then more time for them to get off the ground.
Let's say he had appointed one today. There still isn't enough time left to litigate.
(It’s a not-well-kept secret that many traditional-ish Jews not only wrote some of the best Christmas songs, but also love Christmas songs).
It reminds me of a BC time years ago, when a group was trying to set a Guinness record…
1/
2/ (BC = Before Covid)
…for the largest carrolling group ever assembled. I was so excited to participate. I didn’t know the songs very well, and I probably have the worst singing voice of anyone who ever enjoyed singing. Like American-Idol outtakes bad.…
3/ A large group was appealing, so I started practicing a bit…
Then I checked the date: A Saturday afternoon.
Shabbat.
Not walking distance, back when I was trying not to drive on Shabbat…
I said, “Nu, that’s not very inclusive of all the shomer Shabbat carrollers.”
Hint: The unitary exec theorists misquoted Blackstone to claim one of these.
Somehow, I keep finding evidence to the contrary.
Please tell Roberts, Kavanaugh, and Thomas that originalists are just making stuff up, so maybe they should be less sanctimonious against Roe & privacy.
If Trump wins a second term, I hope people understand how Cy Vance, Eric Schneiderman, Tish James and the corrupt Cuomo NY Democratic Machine enabled him all along the way.
A new thread on originalism myths:
“The Indecisions of 1789: An Originalism Cautionary Tale” documents another series of misuses of sources by originalist unitary executive theorists.
The Roberts Court relied on this myth to expand presidential power: shugerblogcom.wordpress.com/2021/12/08/the…
2/ The mythic "Decisions of 1789" is that a House majority endorsed the unitary theory of implied presidential powers.
But only 16 of 53 (30%) fit that bill.
Trying to find more votes, Prakash miscategorized many members or sources.
My paper here: papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cf…
3/ The 1st error: Thomas Hartley.
Prakash in "A New Light on the Decision of 1789," cited by Justice Thomas, claims Hartley was part of an "enigmatic" bloc of members that *could* have favored the unitary theory.
But he clearly was not a presidentialist: shugerblogcom.wordpress.com/2021/12/08/the…
If your first shot was Johnson & Johnson, your booster shot is Grant & Nixon…
My apologies to @EricColumbus for missing that he tweeted this first.
But let me make up for it:
If your first shot was Janssen, your booster is Jansssen...