Solicitor General who argued for D.C. Ban is out!

[Animal Mother]

http://video1.washingtontimes.com/potusnotes/2008/05/clement_out_as_solicitor_gener_1.html


Paul Clement resigned today from his post as solicitor general, effective June 2, the Justice Department has announced ….


But some in the White House, particularly Vice President Cheney, were not happy with Mr. Clement's arguments in D.C. v. Heller, the gun rights case heard by the court in March.


Mr. Clement argued that the second amendment allows individuals to bear arms, but he also allowed some room in his interpretation of the second amendment for the control of firearms by the government.


The solicitor general asked that a 2007 Court of Appeals ruling be returned to the D.C. Circuit because its assertion of an individual right to bear arms was too broad.


Mr. Cheney wanted the court to rule that there should be no government control over firearm ownership and use, and signed his name to an amicus brief arguing so.

 

[calaverasslim]

Sounds like this feller, Clements, tried to straddle the fence. Just like a politician. Playing both ends against the middle. Glad he was forced out. We don't need him. Sure hope his wife needs him, cuz no one else does.

 

[#shooter]

Maybe he can get a job at AHSA.

 

[ctdonath]

I'm not gonna knock him much for that position, as it's basically what his job required: argue for a legal position allowing the Executive Branch to carry out the laws the Legislative Branch has imposed. The result was a squishy position of "this right cannot be infringed, except for where it is infringed." Rock, hard place, no jackhammer.

That said, it's up to the head (i.e.: President) of the Executive Branch to say "laws plainly violating the Constitution are void unless the Supreme Court explains why they're not." Bush should have weighed in with a strongly pro-RKBA position, but that doesn't fit his poker-playing style. Lacking explicit direction from Bush to the contrary, Clements didn't have much choice but take the position his job basically required.

Cheney did weigh in, but could only do so as head of the Senate (Legislative Branch), not as #2 of the Executive Branch.

 

[kurtmax]

I agree with ctdonath. I don't have too many hard feelings towards Clement. It's really the Bush administration that messed up.

 

[Standing Wolf]

I don't have too many hard feelings towards Clement. It's really the Bush administration that messed up.

The "good German" defense hasn't worked since 1946.

In the first place, yes, Bush should have set a moral, legal, historical, and cultural tone congruent with the Constitution and Bill of Rights; even without leadership, however, lawyers of high legal standing are supposed to be 1.) bright enough to be able to read the Constitution and Bill of Rights, and then 2.) argue in favor of rather than against the.

 

[Chipperman]

"You drive down the right side of road, you OK. You drive down the left side of road, you OK. You drive down the middle of road-- squashed like a grape."
--Mr. Miyagi

 

[Brett Bellmore]

In the first place, yes, Bush should have set a moral, legal, historical, and cultural tone congruent with the Constitution and Bill of Rights; even without leadership, however, lawyers of high legal standing are supposed to be 1.) bright enough to be able to read the Constitution and Bill of Rights, and then 2.) argue in favor of rather than against the.

Clement was bright enough to figure out that a President who campaigned on making the '94 'assault weapon' ban permanent, among other things, didn't want the Supreme court to declare the 2nd amendment protects a meaningful right. He might have been a 'good German', but I'm not going to say what that makes Bush.

 

[armedandsafe]

Does anybody see the irony of the lawyer (Clement) acting as the quintesential politician and the politician (Cheney) demanding that the law of the land be obeyed?

Pops

 

[Standing Wolf]

He might have been a 'good German', but I'm not going to say what that makes Bush.

The oft-cited "lesser of two evils," right?

 

[Aguila Blanca]

That said, it's up to the head (i.e.: President) of the Executive Branch to say "laws plainly violating the Constitution are void unless the Supreme Court explains why they're not." Bush should have weighed in with a strongly pro-RKBA position, but that doesn't fit his poker-playing style. Lacking explicit direction from Bush to the contrary, Clements didn't have much choice but take the position his job basically required.

I suspect Clements argued what his superior(s) told him to argue.

That said, the DOJ is part of the executive branch of the government, and the CEO of the executive branch is the President. Jorge should have instructed the DOJ to butt out ... but Jorge is not an especially good Republican, nor is he a reliable friend of the 2nd Amendment and/or the RKBA.

 

[kurtmax]

The "good German" defense hasn't worked since 1946.

Please. Arguing a BS position in front of judges that know better anyways is not equivalent to herding people into ovens.

This thread is a bit young to be getting dangerously close to invoking Godwin's Law.

 

[Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow]

Bush is most *certainly* responsible for the position of his employees-at-will. The buck stops with the executive in chief - he can and must take responsibility for that milque-toast position. Yet another reason to despise Bush. (On the plus side, Bush did do one thing recently that made me admire him to a tiny extent - veto the corporate welfare pork-fat-laden farm bill - too bad the veto will be overridden).

 

[TexasRifleman]

This thread is a bit young to be getting dangerously close to invoking Godwin's Law.

Pretty much any thread that involves the disarming of a population is deserving of being right on the edge of Godwin's Law at all times.

 

[Blackbeard]

It's not Clement's fault. His job was to argue on behalf of his client -- the US Government -- which had an untenable position. Lawyers who defend scumbag rapists in court aren't saying they're in favor of rape. They're just doing their job.

 

[ctdonath]

I suspect Clements argued what his superior(s) told him to argue.

The federal government is a large organization doing a great deal at any given time. The President has other things to do than micro-manage every task that all his subordinates are dealing with. Word is Bush was blindsided with the brief Clements submitted, which was based on the DOJ position, and by the time he knew what was going on it was too late to un-submit the brief. Yes, the case looks huge to us, but in the grand hoopla of federal bureaucracy it did not make everyone's radar.

There is no evidence of "following orders"; to the contrary, the problem seems there were no relevant orders and the SG handled it like any other case. Some are far too eager to invoke Godwin's Law.

 

[TexasRifleman]

Some are far too eager to invoke Godwin's Law.

Again, any time any government official believes as Himmler did then Godwin's law is right there on the edge waiting at all times.

Germans who wish to use firearms should join the SS or the SA — ordinary citizens don't need guns, as their having guns doesn't serve the State. H Himmler

There is no evidence of "following orders";

There is no evidence that it's as you claim either, that he was just acting alone and no one knew about this. That's frankly pretty hard to believe.

 

[Kharn]

TexasRifleman:
Clement wasn't acting alone (he had legions of underlings writing the brief and doing the research for him), but he was most likely working without direction from above, and in contradiction to what the direction would have been had it been provided.

Kharn

 

[lacoochee]

It's hard to imagine that Clements did not know what the general position of the executive branch was/is regarding the second amendment given that he is/was the U.S. Attorney General.

Does that mean that I think that Bush administration directed him to file the brief as it now stands? Nope, I truly think that in this instance, that Clements went off the reservation and decided to go his own way. In the end, I am just as angry about it as a mistake as I would have been had the act been deliberate. Either by choice or happenstance this administration has managed to either do or has attempted to do more damage to our future as a country than any monarchist/socialist/collectivist/fascist/anarchist/*-ist has been able to dream of doing over the last 200 years.

Due to his ineptitude, I truly believe we will be fully involved in several secessionist movements in the next 25 years if not an actual Civil War. Just sayin...

 

[TexasRifleman]

lement wasn't acting alone (he had legions of underlings writing the brief and doing the research for him), but he was most likely working without direction from above, and in contradiction to what the direction would have been had it been provided.

And again, we have some indication of this from what source? Any evidence other than it was clear the VP was pissed off after the fact?

Nope, I truly think that in this instance, that Clements went off the reservation and decided to go his own way.

Any evidence?

From a President that said he'd sign an assault weapon ban if it reached him I'm not going to make any assumptions.

 

[Kharn]

TexasRifleman:
Bush has had a hard time reigning in certain Departments since he took office (mainly due to Clinton holdover career civil servants he could not just fire & replace), State being the worst offender and Justice not far behind. January marked the beginning of the last year of his term, better to just roll with the punches than try to fix them after the fact. Cheney signing the other brief as President of the Senate has almost the same effect as Bush ordering the brief recalled and rewritten, but without the political fallout of "Oh noes! W cant control DOJ!" and the incentive for other civil servants to go against the intent of the current administration.

This kind of infighting stays in-house, it doesnt make the front page of the NY Times until somebody gets fired and cries about it or W writes his memoirs.

Kharn

 

[Brett Bellmore]

mainly due to Clinton holdover career civil servants he could not just fire & replace

He's had a substantial amount of "trouble" from political appointees he chose not to replace. Minetta, anyone?

 

[frankie_the_yankee]

Bush should have taken a strong position pro-RKBA and did not.

Ashcroft pretty much set the policy of the DOJ and the Executive Branch some years ago when he wrote the position statement that, in contrast with previous administrations' positions, that this administration regarded the 2A as affirming an individual right. Clement could and should have used that as a guideline.

From what I can tell, he pulled his "it's an individual right but the case should be remanded back to the lower courts to define a standard of review (which should be a low standard compared to other rights listed in the BOR)" position out of thin air.

The laws being challenged are local DC statutes, not anything passed by the Congress and signed by the president. So Clement was under no obligation to defend them.

I doubt that he was acting under Bush's direction in crafting his brief. I think this whole case was below Bush's radar screen.

 

[TexasRifleman]

I think this whole case was below Bush's radar screen.

Part of being President is making sure things don't get below your radar screen. You do that by putting the right people in the jobs.

Failure to do that is the same as authorizing the thing in the first place.

 

[gunshow]

Clement did what he was ordered to do and now he wants out of the public view like the coward he is. Cheney's signature on the congressional brief was PURE political cover. If the administration would have wanted Clement to say something else, he would have. They didn't.