This is enraging. Our bench is deeper than having to look to women who already have their dream job. Come on. /1 (will add receipts shortly) https://twitter.com/joshablock/status/1351646932662423555

Let's do a little roll through history. The last SG, Noel Francisco, was 47 years old when he became SG. He had argued 3 cases in the Supreme Court when he was nominated. /2

Before that was Don Verrilli. When he was nominated to be SG he was 53 years old and had argued 13 Supreme Court cases. /3

Before that was Elena Kagan, who was nominated to be SG at age 48. She had 0 Supreme Court arguments (and I suspect zero arguments in any court). /4

Before her was Greg Garre, who was appointed as PDSG (which later turned into his SG appointment) when he was 40 years old and had argued 11 Supreme Court cases. /5

Before Greg was Paul Clement. Paul was appointed as PDSG at the age of 34. He had argued 0 cases in the Supreme Court. When that job turned into an SG nomination, he was 38 and had argued 22 cases as PDSG. /6

Before Paul was Ted Olson. When he was nominated as SG, he was 60 (older than most SG nominees) and had argued 15 cases. /7

Before Ted was Seth Waxman, who I believe was 45 when he became SG and had argued about half a dozen cases. /8

Is the Biden Administration adopting a new standard this time around for female SGs that is a complete departure from the standard both parties have applied in modern historical SG nominations? /9

To be nominated, a woman has to have so proven herself that she's basically gotta already have a job with life tenure (like Justice Krueger or Judge Wood)? /10

I'd also like to compare the experience above with just a handful of women in the Supreme Court Bar. Sarah Harrington, for example, has argued 22 Supreme Court cases--more than any political appointee in OSG in modern history (maybe ever?). /11

Gingers Anders has argued 18 Supreme Court cases. /12

Deanne Maynard has argued 14 Supreme Court cases. /13

Elaine Goldenberg has argued 12 Supreme Court cases. /14

Melissa Sherry has argued 9 Supreme Court cases. /15

There is no dearth of amazing women Supreme Court advocates who have MUCH MORE experience and stature than most SG nominees in recent historical practice. /16

We don't need to coax women into coming off the bench, out of what is probably their dream job, to make it happen. /17

If those looking at SG nominations are applying a standard that requires many gray hairs and dozens of arguments, then they are manufacturing a new standard that seems to be uniquely suited to FORECLOSING the possibility of a women SG. We should expect and demand more. /18

OSG is 150 years old. There has been 1 woman SG in history. We should ALL find that unacceptable. Given the abundance of riches we have in the Supreme Court Bar, there is absolutely no reason that the numerator should remain 1, particularly in an Admin that values diversity. /19

(There's also amazing folks who haven't argued a ton of cases yet because they haven't had a stint in OSG but ABSOLUTELY should be considered, like Loren AliKhan, Kelsi Corkran, and others! It's an embarrassment of riches, people!!!)