The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Bloomberg: Acting SG Prelogar Is Being Vetted For SG
"The delay in announcing an SG nominee ... is likely the result of haggling between the DOJ and the White House"
After nearly 200 days, we may be finally closer to a Solicitor General nominee. Kimberly Strawbridge Robinson has the scoop at Bloomberg Law:
The White House is vetting acting Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar to be nominated for the job on a permanent basis, according to two former SG's office attorneys.
Why the delay? Apparently, there is squabbling between the White House and DOJ:
The delay in announcing an SG nominee is without precedent in recent decades and is likely the result of haggling between the DOJ and the White House over who should get the nod, according to several former SG's office attorneys.
Prelogar has support within the Justice Department, including from Attorney General Merrick Garland, for whom she clerked when he was a federal appeals court judge.
But the White House, which has stressed the importance of racial and professional diversity in high-profile positions, would prefer a more diverse candidate, according to several former SG's office attorneys.
What a world to live in, where the second-ever female Solicitor General would not be diverse enough because she's white. If you're not the "first," you don't count.
But the White House better hurry up! The Vacancy Reform Act goes tick-tock:
Under the Vacancies Reform Act, the White House has only until mid-November to name a nominee before the acting SG can no longer serve in the role. Until that time, Prelogar and her four deputy solicitors general—career positions within the office that often straddle multiple administrations—will have to fill in the gaps.
Maybe that was the strategy all along. String along the diversity advocates, wait until the deadline, and at the last minute, pick the white woman.
If Prelogar is the nominee, Senate Republicans should inquire about the eviction moratorium debacle. It is absolutely fair game to ask Prelogar if she advised on the process, and whether the White House disregarded OLC's opinion. Senators should also ask about Biden's strategy of "hoping" the litigation drags on so the money can be distributed. She won't answer the question, of course, but Senators should still ask.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
"second-ever female Solicitor General "
She could come out as gay. That would make her a first.
Need a black lesbian quadriplegic to make our country stronger by its diversity.
The dipshit has been crippled by his Ivy indoctrination. He is a little diverse.
Do you know that?
That was intended as a response to Bob from Ohio, not DavidBehar.
I thought everyone knew Robert H. Jackson was gay. He put the "solicitor" in Solicitor General.
Remember, it's not libel unless it's derogatory, and it's not derogatory to call someone gay.
Your remark sounds gay. That is a great thing.
I like the word, fey. Is is OK to use? Or, is it too fey?
Everyone knows no such thing. It would be a considerable shock to his late wife and kids. Not dispositive, I know, but still....
You don't know that they would be shocked.
Like I said, "it’s not libel unless it’s derogatory, and it’s not derogatory to call someone gay." So, really, I can call *anyone* gay.
"Do you know that?"
I don't think there has been a self disclosed lesbian Solicitor General before.
If you're looking only at out lesbians rather than gay SG's generally, the odds are pretty much in your favor given the potential sample size.
Translation: white men need not apply.
Imagine if she doesn't end up getting the spot. She might have to fall back on her day job as a [checks notes] handsomely-compensated biglaw partner. One sympathizes.
"Translation: white men need not apply."
This is not going to end well.
Trump merely benefited from the populist rage, he was not a product of it. Others are -- and some scare me.
Oh yes, nothing says populist like mindlessly accepting your judicial appointees from the FedSoc assembly line. Or thinking that anyone is somehow a priori entitled to occupy an elected or, like here, appointed office in government.
"Senate Republicans should inquire about the eviction moratorium debacle."
Ha ha ha ha
1. They wouldn't know what questions to ask.
2. They will be asking the wrong people.
3. They wouldn't be able to understand why Trump's stonewalling strategy can be used by someone besides Trump
4. They will get the OLC confused with the White House counsel
5. It would be defensive.
6. It would be just a lot of grandstanding from the senators, few serious questions, a lot of heat, no light.
By contrast see a recent actually serious committee hearing, on the events of Jan. 6.
"grandstanding from the senators, few serious questions, a lot of heat, no light."
So, just like 99.999999999999999999% other Senate hearings.
"see a recent actually serious committee hearing, on the events of Jan. 6."
My side good, your side bad.
Well, my side good, your side bad, is generally true, even if we try not to unduly make a point of reminding you. Except for Arthur of course.
Sides, eh? Are these well defined, or are set members reassigned as necessary and as fits the assigners’ existing biases? cf. ones sides assertion that righty YT are the worst of the vaccine deniers when that particular attribute is present in disproportionally non-YT groups, or the Presidents’ assertion that “Poor Kids’ Are Just as Bright as ‘White Kids’”.
It is amazing what assertions are made about “sides” lately.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/09/us/politics/joe-biden-poor-kids.html
Why do Democrats only seem to nominate two kinds of folks for judges? It sure isn't Irish, Italian, Catholic funny about that...the "tribalism" which favors two groups is insightful on the true bigots in the progressive judicial world..
Look at a photo of Democrats. Look at a photo of Republicans.
Democrats are all races. Republicans are virtually all white.
Much like the White, male, archaic blog from which Prof. Blackman launches his snide comments about inclusiveness.
These clingers deserve everything that is coming to them. Irrelevance. Disrespect. Scorn. Mockery.
Tell that to Allen West....
Or Larry Elder, who may be the next California Governor.
You know who care the most about race, and the proper proportions thereof? They would be the Racists and the Democrats, which at this point in time are remarkably congruent flavors of awful, in particular with that ancient, peculiar party of actual institutionalized slavery and state-required Jim Crow segregation.
Imagine being able to find a take even dumber than the original story.
The SG has no credibility after flipping so positions, losing badly, and then comes the CDC eviction moratorium. Wont be surprised to see a follow on story that she has declined.
"But the White House, which has stressed the importance of racial and professional diversity in high-profile positions, would prefer a more diverse candidate, according to several former SG's office attorneys."
She could identify as male, convert to Rastafarianism, come on, she need only use a little creativity here.
What does "professional diversity" mean in the context of the SG? Nominate someone who isn't a lawyer? Perhaps a left-handed lesbian pipe-fitter of color?
Oh, in case you don't think she has the creativity to reinvent herself, Wikipedia says she got an MA in Creative Writing from the University of St. Andrews. How much more creative can she get?
Oh, Benjamin Franklin also had a degree from St. Andrew's, but it was purely honorary. Prelogar *earned* her degree. Which makes her smarter than Benjamin Franklin.
Why the eviction moratorium “debacle”?
Getting a 5-4 Supreme Court decision against you is hardly a debacle. It happens to a lot of Presidents. And Solicitors General.
Josh considers it a debacle, therefore the whole world does. It’s how he thinks, especially when he supercaffeinates on an issue, like he has with this one.
Are we really squabbling about diversity as a value in making federal appointments? Diversity may not generally be a controlling value. But, if it is a value that should be, well, valued, it may be controllinig in some cases. Just as it has been thought at some critical times that there is some value in having diverse Supreme Court justices (Jewish, African-American, and even Catholic). So let's praise President Biden for seeking diversity in service to all of the country.
I often thought that the religion clause jurisprudence of the Burger and early Rehnquist Courts was best explained by the absence of a Jewish colleague down the hall to give the mainline Christians a clue.
Do you know who dissented in the *Barnette* (flag-salute) case?
Do you know who concurred in the McGowan v. Maryland (upholding Sunday blue laws) case?
Here's a hint:
https://www.touchofbroadwaydeli.com/frankfurters-m5
I don't recall Frankfurter being on the Burger or Rehnquist courts.
I'm pretty sure his point was that just because you're Jewish doesn't mean you hold a particular set of views.
No, but when the draft opinion asserts that a clearly Christian practice or ceremony or display lacks religious significance just because mainstream Christians are used to it, I'd expect any Jew, regardless of ideology, to say WTF? and straighten his or her colleagues out.
Is the fundamental idea that we can _only_ truly trust someone to either legitimately represent a individuals’ interests when they are have the same color, or the same genitalia, or the same religion, or the continent of origin as the individual?
If not, then why the distrust?
I'm puzzled by the notion that one person can be "diverse". But maybe I could make this work for me. I'm a Straight White Church-Attending Christian Male. Plunk me into a group of Biden appointees, and I'd stand out like a sore thumb! Is that "diverse" enough?
You sound like a ready-for-replacement fossil, the reason defeating the right-wing culture war casualties was so important. Thank you (in advance) for your service.
Did you think this would be the big shitstorm of a comments section for yesterday, or did you have inside info that Biden was about to nominate Prelogar and needed to get a cheap shot out about “diversity” before it happened? A little bit of both maybe?
https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden-us-supreme-court-only-on-ap-19ad9190f158f5df1ac5d2f569dcdc80