IF he wrote (or co-wrote or whatever) the government's brief in rust v. sullivan, understood the meaning of those words, and then signed and submitted the brief, THEN either (1) he authored and signed something that he did not, in fact, believe to be true, and submitted it to the supreme court, or (2) he wants to overturn roe. right? as far as i can tell, those are the only possibilities in light of the really really clear language of rust. his blather about being willing to uphold roe while on the DC circuit is useless, since now he's in a position to do away with that precedent altogether.
is it at all ethical to argue a position you believe to be false when the law of the land is at stake? is there some sort of loophole in basic decency when it comes to the lawyer's role as advocate? [i'm asking these questions seriously, by the way. i'd be willing to believe that there's some sort of customary or understood rule that says lawyers are only mouthpieces, hence confidentiality, blah blah blah.]