Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Bloomberg opposes Bush high-court pick
Yahoo.com ^ | Sept. 16, 2005

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.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Extended News; Government; News/Current Events; Political Humor/Cartoons; US: District of Columbia; US: New York
KEYWORDS: abortion; babykillers; bloomberg; bloombergisright; bush; chiefjustice; conservatism; conservative; johnroberts; judge; justice; killthosebabies; nominee; nycmayor; rats; rino; roberts; robertsisarino; roevswade; roevwade; senate; supremecourt; vote
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 121-131 next last
To: alessandrofiaschi
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.

You know full well that he can't. If he did, he'd lose the votes of enough Republicrats to miss the mark.

Do you think Snowe or Collins would vote for him? That's just two votes.

I think you really don't have any idea of his stance. His answers are all meant to disarm the interview process and move it along.

They spent more time grilling Thomas over a Coke can than they did Roberts over abortion.

He simply kept his mouth shut, saying only what needed to be said, and then turned all points back over on the dummies.
61 posted on 09/16/2005 11:42:32 AM PDT by AlGone2001 (Two supreme court vacancies. Hopefully more on the way.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Meadow Muffin

It's about the children ...


62 posted on 09/16/2005 11:44:22 AM PDT by eastsider
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: eastsider
It's about the children ...

Ain't that the truth...

63 posted on 09/16/2005 11:45:15 AM PDT by frogjerk (LIBERALISM - Being miserable for no good reason)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: alessandrofiaschi
"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."

The term judicial restraint is relative to the side of the issue you are on.

No matter the decision, one side says the other has no "judicial restraint", or that they stepped outside of settled law.

How about standing by the constitution for once?
64 posted on 09/16/2005 11:45:38 AM PDT by AlGone2001 (Two supreme court vacancies. Hopefully more on the way.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: italianquaker
As a former nyc resident Bloomberg is pro abortion

Bloomberg is a Democrat at heart. They're all obsessed with abortion.

65 posted on 09/16/2005 11:48:39 AM PDT by Dr. Scarpetta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: alessandrofiaschi
In cases of Bloomberg's, Jackson's, Sharpton's, Clinton's, and LibRat's mothers, abortion should have been mandatory.
66 posted on 09/16/2005 11:49:28 AM PDT by DogBarkTree
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: alessandrofiaschi

Bloomberg...........RINO


67 posted on 09/16/2005 11:50:15 AM PDT by stocksthatgoup (Polls = Proof that when the MSM want your opinion they will give it to you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: alessandrofiaschi
You said this here in post 47:

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?

 

 

 

68 posted on 09/16/2005 11:52:08 AM PDT by AlGone2001 (Two supreme court vacancies. Hopefully more on the way.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: DogBarkTree
In cases of Bloomberg's, Jackson's, Sharpton's, Clinton's, and LibRat's mothers, abortion should have been mandatory.

I love that line. I'm going to have to borrow it next time I talk to a liberal

69 posted on 09/16/2005 11:52:53 AM PDT by Dr. Scarpetta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: Meadow Muffin

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.


70 posted on 09/16/2005 11:56:02 AM PDT by NCLaw441
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: AlGone2001
Is it just me, or does it seem that those are contradictory statements? Post 59 doesn't even agree with your tagline?

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 ??

71 posted on 09/16/2005 11:57:02 AM PDT by msnimje (Cogito Ergo Republican)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: garyhope

"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)


72 posted on 09/16/2005 11:58:16 AM PDT by wolfcreek
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: AlGone2001
Is it just me, or does it seem that those are contradictory statements?

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...

73 posted on 09/16/2005 11:59:04 AM PDT by alessandrofiaschi (Is Roberts really a conservative?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: shekkian

I wonder if Bloomberg had any concern about the Court's view of Bowers vs. Hardwick as NOT being settled law?


74 posted on 09/16/2005 12:00:52 PM PDT by NCLaw441
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: alessandrofiaschi

"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.


75 posted on 09/16/2005 12:01:12 PM PDT by AlGone2001 (Two supreme court vacancies. Hopefully more on the way.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: alessandrofiaschi; AlGone2001
But Roberts lacks is a clear judicial philosophy.

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.

76 posted on 09/16/2005 12:03:02 PM PDT by AmishDude (Join the AmishDude fan club: "Great point." -- AliVertias; ":-) Very clever" -- MJY1288)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: alessandrofiaschi

So, how many confirmation votes does Michael Bloomberg get?


77 posted on 09/16/2005 12:04:22 PM PDT by JoeGar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: alessandrofiaschi

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.


78 posted on 09/16/2005 12:05:12 PM PDT by Puddleglum (Thank God the Boston blowhard lost)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: AmishDude

Change your tone, pr go back to your farm!


79 posted on 09/16/2005 12:05:45 PM PDT by alessandrofiaschi (Is Roberts really a conservative?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: alessandrofiaschi

"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.


80 posted on 09/16/2005 12:08:03 PM PDT by AlGone2001 (Two supreme court vacancies. Hopefully more on the way.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 121-131 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson