Miguel Estrada said he'd "never accept a job that requires Senate confirmation."
Solicitor General Donald Verrilli has been at the forefront of many of the country's hottest legal disputes.
Something is wrong when Supreme Court Justices wrestle this way with legal concepts. The problem is clearly not they. The law, regulations, and policies are the problem, as is the inertia that keeps them that way.
A bipartisan group of solicitors general lavished praise on President Obama's Supreme Court pick.
Somehow, despite cutting public schools and the UW system, borrowing to fund transportation, and decimating the Department of Natural Resources, the GOP found a way to fund a new and largely unaccountable Solicitor General with several new deputies, charged with using taxpayer money to fight ideological battles in court.
Don't Jeopardize the Work or the Integrity of the Supreme Court -- How a Recess Appointment Could Satisfy Both Sides
The partisan bickering over when to fill the vacancy occasioned by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia must not be allowed to jeopardize the work of the Supreme Court. Those signing below are distinguished law professors, practitioners and even judges.
Commonwealth officials are not happy about a legal brief the U.S. filed in a little-noticed Supreme Court case.
The two states can't show a "direct injury" that requires the Supreme Court to get involved in the case, the U.S. solicitor general argued.
Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr. is this week's Most Impressive Democrat of the Week award-winner, for doing a much better job arguing the case for President Obama's interpretation of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act before the Supreme Court than he did the last time around.
Much has been made recently about, shall we say kindly, the "unusual" plaintiffs. But, even if plaintiffs were not so "unusual", and they would indeed be subject to penalties, their claims of economic damages fail on their face.
While Solicitor General Verrilli's brief stopped short of a sweeping call for a constitutional right to marriage equality across the nation, the argument it does make is both judicious and full of dramatic implications.
"Throughout history, we have seen the unjust consequences of decisions and policies rooted in discrimination," Holder said
CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin called Verrilli's showing a "train wreck" and predicted the law was in "grave trouble" following