Elephant In Exile

It doesn't happen often...

Last night and again this morning, I've mentioned that John Roberts position on Roe v. Wade via briefs he writes isn't necessarily representative of his views on the matter. Today, shudder, Ann Coulter agrees. She may be a raving loon, but she's no dummy, Michigan Law Review is no joke. (And Michigan is such a liberal place, it shares the blame in creating Ms. Coulter's public persona.)

Elephant said:

...saying that Mr. Roberts argued that Roe v. Wade should be overturned, that comment really doesn't provide an accurate picture. If you look at the cases on which Mr. Roberts was an attorney (as in the case Drudge cites) Mr. Roberts isn't necessarily presenting his views as a justice, rather he is providing his client's views (in the case mentioned the views of Republican administrations). An attorney is a servant to his clients, so his record as an attorney isn't a good reflection of what he may believe as a judge.

Ann Says:

It means nothing that Roberts wrote briefs arguing for the repeal of Roe v. Wade then he worked for Republican administrations. He was arguing on behalf of his client, the United States of America.

Roberts has specifically disassociated himself from those cases, dropping a footnote to a 1994 law review article that said: “In the interest of full disclosure, the author would like to point out that as Deputy Solicitor General for a portion of the 1992-93 Term, he was involved in many of the cases discussed below. In the interest of even fuller disclosure, he would also like to point out that his views as a commentator on those cases do not necessarily reflect his views as an advocate for his former client, the United States.”