One of my favorite aspects of reading a Paul Clement argument transcript is to marvel at how disciplined he is. It looks so natural, but his answers are so well designed. You can see this clearly when he uses the same locutions over and over again. I previously commented on his “Rule of Two” (everything has two answers).

In Hobby Lobby, his favorite catch-phrase was that Congress “could not be clearer” with their intent when designing RFRA. I found three cites:

MR. CLEMENT: Well ­­ well, Justice Kagan, nothing could be clearer than when Congress passed RFRA Congress made a judgment that RFRA was going to apply to all manner of Federal statutes. And I think what the Congress ­­

MR. CLEMENT: Well, Justice Ginsburg . . . Congress could not have been clearer that it was passing a statute that it wanted to apply to all preexisting statutes and to all subsequent statutes unless Congress specifically provided otherwise.

MR. CLEMENT: Well, Justice Ginsburg . . . that amendment was rejected and the House report that demonstrates the rejection of that amendment could not be clearer that they understood that for­ profit corporations would be covered.