I know general norms governing SCOTUS nominations dictate that sitting judges are preferable, but are there any other practical reasons why lawyers in private practice -- especially once-a-generation stars like Clement -- aren't seriously considered?
-
-
-
I think it's mainly the norms you cite, which also go to confirmability - even the sper-qualified Elena Kagan got "she's never been a judge" criticism - but maybe there are also concerns re: more conflicts of interest/recusals (but those fall away over time).
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Very weak piece that doesn't come close to establishing key claim that Kavanaugh had knowledge. See
@DavidLat thread.https://twitter.com/DavidLat/status/1037928034224033792 … -
Read it just now- very legal argument not an ethical one unfortunately
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
Too bad since Paul Clement is the Babe Ruth of the SCOTUS bar. I had the opportunity to watch him argue twice (SCOTUS & 2nd Cir). He’s exceptionally talented at his craft.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I agree that Clement would be an outstanding
#SCOTUS Justice. But then we would be deprived of enjoying the beauty of his oral arguments. They are a thing of magic.Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Clement does not know how to read a plainly worded decision. Justice Scalia wrote in the Heller decision that concealed carry is not a
#2A right. Kavanaugh says the Heller decision excludes concealed carry from#2A. Clement says#OpenCarry can be banned.https://youtu.be/MRgTihlLOHkThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
It’s a very selective club.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.