It's arguable whether Paul Clement is the best Supreme Court advocate of his generation. But there's no doubt he's the most prolific. When he approaches the lectern at the Supreme Court Wednesday, it will mark his 129th time arguing before the justices.
He defined the job this way at a recent conference sponsored by the conservative National Review magazine: "I always think a good working definition of a good Supreme Court advocate is somebody who's trying to get to five for their client," Clement said. Five of nine justices — in other words, victory. The Republican super-lawyer has racked up dozens of those wins since his days as solicitor general in the George W.
For the last couple decades, Clement has worked outside government, often challenging actions by the White House. But Clement told the National Review he's still a fan of a strong executive branch. "I'm a big believer in the unitary executive — but that doesn't mean that the president gets to do anything he wants," he said.
Clement famously tried to get the Supreme Court to overturn President Obama's signature health care law, a loss that still stings. But he did convince the justices to deliver on other, long-held Republican priorities, like keeping judges out of partisan gerrymandering; telling courts they do not have to defer to federal agency expertise; and striking down restrictions on guns. That work defending gun rights has been controversial, as his law partner Erin Murphy recalled recently.
"We had lots of different cases and clients, and over time, it just became something more and more people were complaining about," Murphy explained in a webinar about defending unpopular clients sponsored by the conservative Federalist Society. "The firm said you can remain at the firm only if you drop your existing clients and discontinue the Second Amendment work you had done," Murphy recalled. "We said, 'No thank you' and went and started our firm, Clement and Murphy." Ironically, Clement and Murphy are now working on behalf of big law firms, which are challenging punitive executive orders by President Trump.
Trump went after the firms for hiring attorneys who once investigated him, yanking their security clearances and barring them from federal buildings. Clement made his case to the D.C. Circuit appeals court in May.
Extract — continue reading at the source.
