[lentulusgracchus]

Clement resigned ahead of the finding in DC v. Heller because he'd gotten wind of the internal debate at SCOTUS gleaned from their legal aides as well as what legal references they were researching on behalf of the individual justices.

Do I understand correctly, then, that Clement argued a grabber's brief in Silviera vs. Lockyer?

And is he,then, carrying water for Pres. Bush in arguing such briefs? We know the Bush Administration has twice now -- in Emerson and now in Heller, argued that RKBA is both an individual right, and one that can be regulated out the wazoo. In Heller they're arguing for every restrictive federal gun law ever written. Perhaps DoJ and the Solicitor General think they have a positive obligation to play goalie for every federal law on the books, but I don't buy it.

Further: If Clement is getting inside whispers from the network of Supreme Court clerks, then does that mean he's a Harvard guy tied into Laurence Tribe's intelligence network of former students serving as clerks for the Justices?

Tribe himself has said, all unwillingly, that his reading of 2A is that it's very broad in the rights it confirms to individuals and binds to the States. Is he nevertheless logrolling behind the scenes (and maybe losing, if Clement resigned) for a restrictive ruling that favors the Solicitor General's interpretation of a broad, but infinitely infringible 2A?

[The KG9 Kid]

It's my understanding that it is the job of the Solicitor General to argue vigorously before the US Supreme Court that every single bill passed by Congress and signed into law by the President is entirely Constitutional.

That includes bills passed by an earlier Congress and signed into law by previous administrations.

Sounds like a rotten job, actually. I could never be a lawyer forced to take a position that I was fundamentally opposed to.