Posted on 09/16/2005 11:15:31 AM PDT by alessandrofiaschi
NEW YORK (Reuters) - New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg on Friday opposed John Roberts' nomination to be U.S. Supreme Court chief justice, making him the first noted Republican to break with the Bush administration over who should lead America's top court.
Bloomberg, a former Democrat seeking re-election in a heavily Democratic city, said Roberts had failed to show a commitment to upholding the 1973 Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision establishing a right to abortion.
"I am unconvinced that Judge Roberts accepts the landmark Roe v. Wade ruling as settled law," Bloomberg said.
Roberts' answers to questions in Senate confirmation hearings "did not indicate a commitment to protect a woman's right to choose," he said. "For that reason I oppose the nomination of Judge Roberts as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court."
While Bloomberg's statement is unusual from a Republican, the mayor has no standing over whether Roberts will be confirmed by the U.S. Senate as chief justice.
Bloomberg, who became a billionaire by building the media company named after him, is ahead in polls in the New York mayoral race ahead of November's election here.
Like many Republicans in New York, Bloomberg has long been a liberal on social issues and has been unafraid to publicly break with U.S. President George W. Bush.
It's about the children ...
Ain't that the truth...
Bloomberg is a Democrat at heart. They're all obsessed with abortion.
Bloomberg...........RINO
To: Puddleglum
You'll soon see "your" Roberts favoring abortion in Court. He will never reject abortion! But he hasn't the courage to make a clear statement on this issue.
47 posted on 09/16/2005 2:34:21 PM EDT by alessandrofiaschi (Is Roberts really a conservative?)
You said this here in IN POST 59:
To: AmishDude; AlGone2001
There is a growing pile of materials, in Roberts' opinions and in the Reagan-era documents dribbling out of the White House, that indicates he has personally held conservative views on major fronts—abortion, religion, and executive power. But Roberts lacks is a clear judicial philosophy. As a result, proponents of judicial restraint — an approach to the law that's become as fashionable among liberals as conservatives — are eager to embrace him as one of their own. Leftist advocates of restraint celebrate justices who don't reach out beyond the facts of a case to decide more than they need to and who respect existing Supreme Court precedent. Roberts' judicial conservatism will stay on this line. Which is very different from that judicial philosophy, willing to jettison past anti-costitutional decisions(Thomas and Scalia).
59 posted on 09/16/2005 2:40:58 PM EDT by alessandrofiaschi (Is Roberts really a conservative?)
Is it just me, or does it seem that those are contradictory statements?
Post 59 doesn't even agree with your tagline?
I love that line. I'm going to have to borrow it next time I talk to a liberal
Agreed. I hope that Roberts sees the Roe decision for the LEGAL abomination that it is, but from all that I have seen, I am comfortable even if he is not setting out to overturn any particular case or to support any particular point of view. I am confident that conservative positions are, for the most part, constitutional positions, and thus, positions Roberts will support, not because of ideology, but because of the law.
Isn't it funny that people who have NO IDEA what they are talking about are so willing to advertise their ignorance of the subject ??
"Can anyone THINK of consequences before acting?"
Some can, however I think it's just the way we roll.(some new crap the kids are saying)
No contradiction! Simply, he separates his own personal view about abortion etc., from the respect of precedents and Congress, in name of a sort of judicial restraint. Which mean, again, nothing more that a different line from Thomas or Scalia. Broadly speaking, he will new vote against Roe v Wade...
I wonder if Bloomberg had any concern about the Court's view of Bowers vs. Hardwick as NOT being settled law?
"No contradiction! Simply, he separates his own personal view about abortion etc."
No... not if post 59 says his posted views on abortion were conservative.
You guys always pull this one. You start with "He's just like Kennedy/O'Connor/Souter" and then have to fall back on "He hasn't told us how he will rule on anything yet."
If you are going to talk, at least stand up, because the way you're expressing your information, it's muffled by the chair.
So, how many confirmation votes does Michael Bloomberg get?
I guess we'll see. I believe he could not comment on the case and I can't read his mind. I trust his legal mind, his judgment. I don't think he's "mine" per se, any more than he is yours.
Change your tone, pr go back to your farm!
"Broadly speaking, he will new vote against Roe v Wade..."
I am not satisfied with "broadly". I want to know your specific reason. Tell what you know about his abortion views in plain writing.
You really have no idea. It is merely an opinion.
It's as simple as I have laid it out. If he is against abortion in a constitutional sense, he can't tell the committee he is against it.
The truth of the matter is that abortion is legal at this time.
As a nominee for the court, he must treat it as law. That's just the way it is.
No matter how you slice it, it's political to have any seat of power. This is possible the most powerful seat in the nation.
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.