I have no idea how he will do as acting Attorney General. I DO know, however, that Paul Clement is the best oral advocate I have ever personally witnessed in any appellate court. His Supreme Court oral argument in Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights was a tour de force.
Bloomberg News notes the only snag I've heard of regarding Clement -- his barefaced statement to the Supreme Court that America doesn't use "mild torture." But they relate it only to the Abu Ghraib story that broke the same day, without discussing whether Clement had any knowledge of, say, the Addington-Yoo memos.
Given Clement's good reputation on both sides of the street, I'm willing to give him a pass on that -- but I'm curious if anyone's ever asked him about that in so many words.
Now, the $64K question: does he have too much integrity to cut it as AG? What will he do if and when he's asked to pass upon some evasion of the law? Or will the AG be just another person cut out of the ever-shrinking loop?
If Paul wants to have a successful legal career afterwards, and possibly, a Supreme Court nomination, he'd best follow the law and untether himself from the rapidly sinking ship that is the Bush administration.
Lloyd George: I am sure you are correct from a pragmatic point of view--are you suggesting he would have difficulty following the law as Atty General? Just not clear on the "follow the law" phase
I well remember his exuberant performance in Rumsfeld v. FAIR. Very forceful, if you like the full-speed-ahead style of advocacy. IMO Roberts is even more impressive.
I suppose I would be satisfied if, at a minimum, naked political considerations were not the first or foremost consideration in deciding legal issues. (Given that politics and the law almost always intersect, especially in the Justice Department.)
As for more than that, I'm not sure, but I do want an evenhanded approach to the law and one that doesn't do violence to the Constitution.
I never had the privilege of watching John Roberts argue before the Supreme Court (or anywhere else) so I defer to you as to his appellate advocacy skills. I do note that as Chief Justice he is an active participant in oral arguments.
On a separate note, since it appears you were also present for the FAIR oral arguments, would you agree that it was an act of high political theater for a large contingent of JAG officers to be sworn into the Supreme Court bar the day FAIR was argued? (The Clerk of the Supreme Court, William Suter, is a retired Major General and the commander of the Army Legal Affairs Agency)
Lloyd George--thanks for the clarification and I agree you have described what ought to be the minimum standard for AG. I would also like to see some degree of organizational competence as well. (A good argument against Judge Chertoff, IMO, based on my impressions of how he has run DHS). I still incline toward Ted Roberts if I were chosing, but regretably, the President does not make good people choices.
A prof of mine who I have no doubt is way to the left of Paul Clement nevertheless told me he thought Clement was very smart and very capable. I suspect those are two attributes not many people would ascribe to AGAG.
I feel better knowing that my kids can safely use the public restrooms in America because IT IS NOT OK for grown men to use them explicitly as a meeting places for quick, anonymous sex.
I wish him well--and hope for the best.
Given Clement's good reputation on both sides of the street, I'm willing to give him a pass on that -- but I'm curious if anyone's ever asked him about that in so many words.
Now, the $64K question: does he have too much integrity to cut it as AG? What will he do if and when he's asked to pass upon some evasion of the law? Or will the AG be just another person cut out of the ever-shrinking loop?
I suppose I would be satisfied if, at a minimum, naked political considerations were not the first or foremost consideration in deciding legal issues. (Given that politics and the law almost always intersect, especially in the Justice Department.)
As for more than that, I'm not sure, but I do want an evenhanded approach to the law and one that doesn't do violence to the Constitution.
I never had the privilege of watching John Roberts argue before the Supreme Court (or anywhere else) so I defer to you as to his appellate advocacy skills. I do note that as Chief Justice he is an active participant in oral arguments.
On a separate note, since it appears you were also present for the FAIR oral arguments, would you agree that it was an act of high political theater for a large contingent of JAG officers to be sworn into the Supreme Court bar the day FAIR was argued? (The Clerk of the Supreme Court, William Suter, is a retired Major General and the commander of the Army Legal Affairs Agency)
I feel better knowing that my kids can safely use the public restrooms in America because IT IS NOT OK for grown men to use them explicitly as a meeting places for quick, anonymous sex.
Make sense?