I need help parsing Roberts' criticism of Roe v. Wade

My own fevered mind ^ | now | me

[dangus]

As Chief Deputy Solicitor General under President George H. W. Bush and Solicitor General Kenneth Starr, John Roberts wrote a scathing rebuke of Roe v. Wade. His attempt at preserving the challenged law may have been stronger if he had simply argued that the law did not constitute a challenge to the "right" to an abortion; bowing to precedent would not make it more difficult to challenge that precedent later on another issue. Yet, Roberts argued: “We continue to believe that Roe was wrongly decided and should be overruled…. [T]he Court’s conclusion in Roe that there is a fundamental right to an abortion… finds no support in the text, structure, or history of the Constitution.”

On the other hand, it has been argued that he simply was doing his job, which was reflecting the administration's view that Roe should be overturned. During his confirmation hearings to the Circuit Court of Appeals, Roberts stated he would uphold Roe, but such a statement only reflects that he recognizes the authority of a superior court.

So here's my question, as I try to parse Roberts' writings: Must someone arguing an administration's position use the pronoun, "we," when referring to the administration? Normally the use of this pronoun includes the speaker as part of the subject of the sentence. When a Solicitor speaks to a court, are the words his, or his employers?

I know lawyers often assume positions they do not personally hold, but please note that that is not what I am asking. Even if, say, a criminal defense attorney believes his client is guilty as sin, he can still speak for himself when arguing a motion. What I am asking is does the use of the word, "we," suggest that an opinion is held by a multiplicity of speakers: the administration AND the solicitor.

[Laura_RB]

“I am extremely disappointed that the President did not appoint a centrist woman to fill Sandra Day O’Connor’s seat on the Supreme Court,” said Eleanor Smeal, president of the Feminist Majority. “We are now going back to tokenism for women on the highest court in the land.”

Head's up, E. Smeal: appointing a woman because she is a woman is the DEFINITION of tokenism.

Should Bush have nominated a man, a woman, a white, a black, a Latino, a Jew, and Indian?

Here's a novel approach to appointing a Supreme Court justice we could try: Look at the pool of qualified candidates ... and pick the most qualified. (Why can nobody look a reporter in the face to say this? God help this country if we're not all thinking it.)

As to the original thread question of 'parsing' Roberts' brief: Attorney's almost always use "we believe" and "we assert" and other "we" language to zealously represent their client (as they are bound by the rules of ethics to do). For the attorney to differentiate "his" beliefs/assertions from a non-lawyer client would act to discredit them - this would not be "zealous representation."

Additionally, I am a Marine, a lawyer, and a female, for anyone interested in where my beliefs/assertions are coming from.

[Freemyland]

Well, except that he went on to say this at those same hearings: "I don't think it's appropriate for me to criticize [Roe v. Wade] as judicial activism ... My definition of judicial activism is when the court departs from applying the rule of law and undertakes legislative or executive decisions."

I read that as him refusing to fall into the trap of explicitly going on record against Roe, but at the same time signaling that he does consider it activism.

[Laura_RB]

What do traitors, rapists, child-molesters, and any other reprehensible-type people have in common?

All of their lawyers say "we" in the course of their zealous representation.

Well, except maybe the traitor's lawyer. He may be too busy with movie deals and fitness-video copyright actions.

[Sloth]

She was with me.

Were you, uh, premature?

[k2blader]

Thanks for this info. Might you have a link?

[k2blader]

Agreed.

Though before he's confirmed I would like to know more than lawyer-speak.

[lilylangtree]

Even the woman in the Roe v. Wade admits its wrong legislation.

[BenLurkin]

"[T]he Court’s conclusion in Roe that there is a fundamental right to an abortion… finds no support in the text, structure, or history of the Constitution.”

That is a correct statement.

The only reason for the Roe decision was the blind acceptance of the ludicrous precedent set in the ridiculous decision of Griswold v State of Connecticut.

[AntiGuv]

Here's a link, but it's not the one from where I initially found those quotes (I just Googled this one).

[AMHN]

Thanks AntiGuv

At one point Dred v Scott was the settled law of the land (at least in the eyes of Democrat slave owners). History has certainly shown us the this buzz word is used by those who subscribe to the most current law carved out by those they fought to sit on the court and interpret the constitution. For the rest, it all about changing the court and its opinion.

I sure hope that whomever is choosen to sit on the bench does not see Abortion as the settled law of the land. If they do, they might chip away at who gets informed, or exactly how the proceedures may be performed, but the core of the law will still exist and a life will still get extinquished.

Imagine if we only chipped away at Slavery and accepted rulings that limited how to obtain slaves, or when they could be beaten or abused, maybe even what punishments where OK and which ones weren't. Slavery would still exist. Slavery would just be packaged differently.

This is not the settled law of the land...not by a long shot. And therefore I'm not comfortable with Roberts views.

[k2blader]

Thank you, AntiGuv.

[Ol' Sparky]

Ann is right as usual:

But unfortunately, other than that that, we don’t know much about John Roberts. Stealth nominees have never turned out to be a pleasant surprise for conservatives. Never. Not ever....Maybe Roberts will contravene the sordid history of “stealth nominees” and be the Scalia or Thomas Bush promised us when he was asking for our votes. Or maybe he won’t. The Supreme Court shouldn't be a game of Russian roulette.

[lugsoul]

Okay. Yes, they do. It is no mystery.

[lugsoul]

No. As I said she was.

Over and over again. ;-)

[DallasMike]

John Roberts' wife is actively pro-life. To me, that says a lot.

-Michael McCullough (DallasMike)

Stingray blogsite

[HawaiianGecko]

 

 

	I've never heard an attorney say "My client thinks he's innocent".  Or "my client will prove he is not guilty."  It's pretty much always "we will .... yada, yada, yada." If you are in an argument with someone that is parsing to the level of "we", I suggest you find a more worthy opponent to debate.

 

[SoothingDave]

When a Solicitor speaks to a court, are the words his, or his employers?

Ever heard a lawyer called a "mouthpiece"?

They argue the best possible case on behalf of their clients and they argue towards the decision their clients desire.

The use of "we" is not indicative of a lawyer's personal stance toward the issue.

SD

[kinsman redeemer]

... it wasn't "appropriate" at that time.

Furthermore - he understands what "judicial activism" is.

I am perfectly satisfied.

[madison10]

Can you cite me an instance of a lwayer[sic] using "we" when he did not hold a position?

Doesn't a lawyer say "we" in reference to his client. He was referencing the administration. That's who hired him--that's who he spoke for. I don't believe personal opinion enters into this...unless you're a Lib & trying to "make law."