I managed to mangle the order (and drop some tweets) in a series of 10 thoughts about the Vaccine Mandate Cases. Here goes another effort. 1) It’s a just a TESTING mandate, damn it! Justices acted as if OSHA had mandated that workers be vaccinated. But compliance can alternatively be 1 brief nasal test a week (and wearing a mask.)Yet some form of “vaccination” was mentioned at argument 150 times! (testing only 29).

1) It’s just a TESTING mandate, damn it! Justices acted as if OSHA had mandated that workers be vaccinated. But compliance can alternatively be 1 brief nasal test a week (+ wearing a mask.) Yet some form of “vaccination” was mentioned 150 times! (testing only 29) 2). Justice Barrett confusingly asked: “Would you be making these same arguments if this were just a masking and testing requirement and not the vaccine portion of it? “ But that is in fact this very case: every employer can choose to make it “just a masking and testing” case.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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:

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..