Solicitor General resigns

The author of the piece makes a gross over-generalization regarding the content Congressional amicus brief.

Good. I would have fired him myself.

Too bad the traitor wasn't kicked out before kicking gun owners in the teeth. I don't understand how this administration can be so asleep at the wheel. The SG serves at the pleasure of the President, and he should have been toeing a very solid line of strict scrutiny.

Too bad the traitor wasn't pushed out before kicking gun owners in the teeth. I don't understand how this administration can be so asleep at the wheel. The SG serves at the pleasure of the President, and he should have been toeing a very bright line of strict scrutiny.

Even if the court discusses/decides standard or scrutiny (which it seemed clear that at least Roberts didn't think they should, or needed to).....

Does anyone here suppose that an SG argument for strict scrutiny, or for intermediate scrutiny, would have much sway on the opinion of any of the particular justices?

In a way, I have my doubts. At one level, it seemed pretty clear from the arguments that the justices were informed and already were fairly firm in their takes on the matter. I suspect that for those, the SG could have argued that the 2A should be repealed, or that MGs should be legal at once, and it would have had little effect.

But I suppose that at another level, particular justices may or may not want to counter a particular administration's views (though I don't know much that's a factor...perhaps a little, but perhaps not much). If anyone here thinks that the SCOTUS is an entirely apolitical animal...then they should think again. But anyway, if politics/party has ANYTHING to do with decisions, it is at least within the realm of possibility that Clement's departure might cause particular justices to lend less creedence to his argument for standard, particularly if they were already leaning toward or considering strict scrutiny.

Then again.....perhaps Clement's departure is wholly independent of the Heller case, and will have no effect whatsoever upon the pending decision.

It seems odd that the SG would formulate a position for the White House and advance that position without having discussed it with the highest officials in the Administration, perhaps even the President himself. Could that really have happened?

My point being, if the Administration didn't like the SG's argument, he probably would not have argued it. I realize the VP signed Halbrook's brief, but that seems more an indication that the VP disagreed with the official Administration position.

Is it really possible tha the SG could adopt a position on such a high profile case absent direction from the top?

"possible tha the SG could adopt a position on such a high profile case absent direction from the top?"
"The SG serves at the pleasure of the President"

What if the SG was in fact carrying out the will of the President, and that President didn't give a fiddler's damn about strict scrutiny for protection of the Constitutional right in question?

I doubt he was fired. Probably just decided it was time to cash in.

I don't know...the CinC seems to be absent on any number of issues, the Ramos and Campeon border patrol guards in prison for doing their job, Lt. Pantano, the Marine accused of atrocities for doing his job, the border fence. It looks like he is exercising his executive privelege to be an MBA corporate manager rather than a leader.