Posted on 07/20/2005 9:15:09 AM PDT by 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.
I don't think Bush would waste the opportunity to nominate a Supreme Court justice on Roberts if he wasn't everything he wanted him to be.
I don't think Bush would waste the opportunity to nominate a Supreme Court justice on Roberts if he wasn't everything he wanted him to be.
President Bush nominated DC Circuit Court Judge John Roberts to the US Supreme Court. The Feminist Majority, the National Organization for Women, NARAL Pro-Choice America, and the National Abortion Federation all immediately announced their intentions to oppose Roberts for the position.
“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.”
“Everything we know about Judge Roberts’ record thus far indicates that he will be a solid vote against women’s rights and Roe v. Wade,” Smeal continued. “If he is to be confirmed by senators who support women’s rights, he must say where he stands on Roe and the right to privacy. The burden is on him.”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1446803/posts
I believe that Ann Coulter (latest Drudge Report) is bringing up a good point over the same issue. Roberts has added language while Deputy Solicitor General that distances himself from those opinions he is writing for the USA. It sounds to me like he is going out of his way to say that he does not necessarily support the views of the opinions he is presenting. It could be he was just protecting his future options, but then it makes you wonder, what options...left, right, or center?
Welcome to FR. Lots of articles on FR today re: Roberts.
It's pointless to worry about it since there's no way to know if Roberts even wrote that part of the brief.
He was referring to the entire body of work as solicitor general. What he said is a no-brainer, not indicative of back-peddling. But I want to know is, in this one specific case, what does "we" mean?
I don't believe the "we" designates the Administration. I am no legal scholar, but it would seem that the "we" would apply to those that approach the subject from a similar viewpoint, such as from what the Constitution says, vs. what others would have it say.
"Roe v. Wade is the settled law of the land. It's a little more than settled. It was reaffirmed in the face of a challenge that it should be overruled in the Casey decision. Accordingly, it's the settled law of the land. There's nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that precedent, as well as Casey."-- Roberts, during 2003 Senate Judiciary hearing, when asked for his own views on Roe v. Wade.
He is cited as the author.
She was with me.
Roberts was a co-author.
No. "We" is used all the time by defense lawyers and the like. It doesn't at all imply that he agrees. Mining his arguments as a lawyer for statements about abortion is 100% useless.
He's Catholic and conservative though, so he probably does oppose abortion. We just can't say for sure going by what is on the record.
Fine. Please, discuss Ann Coulter on the Ann Coulter thread. I posted this for a very specific issue: whether solicitors use the word, "we" when stating opinions they do not hold.
Thanks for being on subject. Can you cite me an instance of a lwayer using "we" when he did not hold a position?
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."
Not off the top of my head; I don't have a pile of legal briefs sitting here, especially ones where I can prove an attorney was advocating a position in court that he doesn't believe. But usage of "we" in the courtroom is commonplace in describing the "official" views of one side. "We believe...", "we hold...", etc. A lawyer's job is to advance his client's opinions to the best of his ability. His own opinions are immaterial.
As a consummate professional, I think Roberts would agree with that, and has specifically said to not read that as his personal opinion.
I'd go further and say that Roberts' lack of a provable position on Roe v. Wade is a big part of why he was chosen. The president thinks he's anti-Roe, but the Dems don't have the ammunition to prove it. Makes confirmation a lot easier.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.