Talk:Paul Clement

message: When did Paul Clement take office? On his page it says 2005, but on the Solicitor General of the United States page it says 2004.
Office was vacant of a "permanent" successor for approximately 1 year during the latter part of term #1 and the early part of term #2.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wizeguy12 (talk • contribs) 18:42, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Pretty sure he became Acting Solicitor General in 2004, but he was not confirmed until 2005.--Smashingworth 04:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

text: You want to keep an eye on this? It looks like it's pretty prone to false claims... -- Phoenix2 (talk, review) 23:37, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Initial comments

message: Almost the entire legal section is quoted word for word on a Georgetown Law Center podcast moot court competition dated 3/18/2008.  Either they simply read from this, or  whoever wrote this copied it from that podcast without citation. 70.164.46.211 (talk) 02:42, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Somebody copied somebody without credit

message: I whittled down the section on DOMA a bit. It's not necessary to cite when that law was enacted, where it can be found and portions from it, there's an article for that and it does not improve understanding of Clement - better to summarize its function similar to how the source handled it. I also removed information about the size and reach of the law firm he resigned from, that information is not relevant to his resignation and should appear (but probably not in such detail as to name the number of people working there) where the firm is first mentioned - giving the size at the point of his bio when he resigns and unrelated to that fact is not consistent. I also removed information about the biography of the leader of the new firm he joined - Dinh has an article himself, just stating Dinh's former job is enough for an article about Clement. Hekerui (talk) 22:31, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I have corrected the statement of what the DOMA statue provides (its main purpose is actually to exempt the recognition of the legality of same-sex marriages by other states and jurisdictions from the provisions of the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution), and restored (in shorter form) the stated reasons for K&S's withdrawal from the case, Clement's reason for subsequently resigning from K&S, and the previous close professional relationship between Clement and his new firm's principal, all of which are essential elements for understanding his move from K&S to Bancroft Associates. Centpacrr (talk) 01:55, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: You merely reinstated the portions with minor fixes. 1) The Defense of Marriage Act is not from 1989. 2) The federal government is not "exempt [from] recognition" but barred from recognizing same-sex marriages. That's what the source said. I will restore content actually in the source. Adding an external link in the article body to a Defense of Marriage Act pdf does not allow original research and does not improve the article because it's about Clement. 3) The exact reasons why his firm chose to withdraw does not matter, because this article is about Clement, and his staying on the case is covered. 4) The given source does not give the information "In order to continue his representation in the DOMA case, Clement immediately joined Bancroft Associates PLLC" - there is no evidence he had to join there to remain the lawyer for the case. 5) "... all of which are essential elements for understanding his move from K&S to Bancroft Associates" If you know sources that state he joined because he knows Dinh, then cite them - Wikipedia is not for speculating and dropping hints about possible explanations for a move. We have Clement's first-hand explanation covered. Hekerui (talk) 09:27, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: 1) DOMA was from 1996, that was a typo on my part; 2) what I said was that the statute amkes "states and other jurisdictions" were same sex marriages are not legal exempt from having to recognize such marriages that are legal in other states as they would otherwise be required to do under the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution ("‘‘No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.’’), the principal issue which the statute addresses before even mentioning a definition of marriage for federal civil purposes; 3) the reason that his former firm withdrew from the case matters because it is one of the reasons that Clement resigned from the firm; 4) there are sources for Clement joining Bancroft Associates in order to continue his representation in the DOMA matter and his long term (more than 20 years) professional and personal association with Dinh which I plan to cite and add shortly when I get a chance to do so as they are relevant to why Clement did what he did. Centpacrr (talk) 18:31, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The paragraph as it is now concisely summarizes what happened. No need for long excerpts from DOMA, long statements from law firms, etc. Let's concentrate on the facts as directed by Wikipedia:Summary style and leave expounding his "(more than 20 years) professional and personal association with Dinh" out because it is of limited interest to the reader and unnecessary detail. The minutiae of the DOMA appeal belong in the DOMA article. Hekerui (talk) 20:42, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The constitutional question (i.e., legal exemption from the Full Faith and Credit Clause) raised by DOMA is much MUCH more important than the "definition of marriage" for federal civil administrative purposes that it is also included as the statute uniquely permits (if not encourages) the several states to ignore the validity of, and discriminate against, certain types of marriages and civil unions that are legal in some other states -- discriminatory state government actions which would otherwise be constitutionally impermissible. Not including that context completely misses the point of why K&S -- a large national firm that has long promoted itself for actively supporting diversity --  was forced to drop the case for which Clement was to be the firm's lead counsel, explains Clement's subsequent sudden departure (and stinging letter of resignation) from the firm, and his continuing representation in the matter by promptly becoming a partner at another, very small (less than 1/100th the size) local boutique conservative firm founded and headed by a controversial former DOJ colleague. This is not just some trivial and/or unimportant side issue, nor is it one for which there are not many reliable sources. (Ignoring it is akin to saying "The only important thing to really know is whether or not Mrs. Lincoln liked the play.") Without including context, the language of the current "concise summary" so pablumizes the account of the subject events as to render the paragraph incomplete, largely uninformative, and, in fact, actually misleading. These related events did not occur in a vacuum. Centpacrr (talk) 20:53, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: "why K&S -- a large national firm that has long promoted itself for actively supporting diversity -- was forced to drop the case" - this is all speculation and the firm's statement includes nothing about force. In any case, this is Clement's article so any info has to have to do with him, the law firm's decision making belongs into the law firm's article. One can of course include content on Clement's decision as analyzed by reliable sources if it discusses how the resignation was unusual, but I'm against readding all the citations from DOMA, the stuff about how many people were employed by the old firm, Viet D. Dinh's résumé etc. which didn't belong, and I'm also against recentism and giving it unusual weight. Context has be on-point, we're not DOMA storytellers. Hekerui (talk) 20:07, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: DOMA case - unnecessary detail

message: Substituted at 02:25, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Paul Clement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://webarchive.loc.gov/all/20121207024231/http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/08-1521.pdf to http://supremecourtus.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/08-1521.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110705070442/http://cache.abovethelaw.com/uploads/2011/04/Paul-Clement-Resignation-Letter.pdf to http://cache.abovethelaw.com/uploads/2011/04/Paul-Clement-Resignation-Letter.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110425180532/http://www.bancroftassociates.net/prof_pclement.htm to http://www.bancroftassociates.net/prof_pclement.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:33, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified