Posted on 09/16/2005 11:15:31 AM PDT by alessandrofiaschi
In a recent speech, he cited Robert Jackson, Felix Frankfurter, and John Marshall Harlan (the younger) as his judicial role models. None of these justices could be described as doctrinaire conservatives. He also said that he admired William Rehnquist for his collegiality--but he also said the same about William Brennan.
Bloomberg doesn't have a say in the matter!
Posturing fool!
This is no different than when Guiliani endorsed BILL CLINTON IN 1996.
Bloomberg is a democrat who became a republican to satisfy his personal ego.
If you mean the "Constitution in Exile". The only judge I've ever heard say or write that term is Judge Ginsberg. Judge Doug Ginsberg.
(If there are any others, anywhere in the U.S. I don't know, but if there are they ain't gonna mention it in front of the Senate.)
Rudy endorsed clinton in 1996.
http://www.phxnews.com/fullstory.php?article=23439
From reviewing what Roberts has said in the past, we do not really know what he will do in relation to abortion. This appointment is not a litmus test on abortion, homosexual rights, or anything else. The question is: will this man faithfully interpret the Constitution and Federal statutes? He has quoted Justice Felix Frankfurter’s instruction to his students; and Frankfurter said, “Read the statute, read the statute, read the statute.” Judge Roberts is going to be strong on statutory interpretation and strong on Constitutional interpretation. He is not somebody who wants to legislate from the bench. This is exactly what the President said that he would give us and he has
Unless you have something else on Roberts concerning Frankfurter, I think that hardly makes Roberts a liberal.
Even the person authoring the comment above went on to say Roberts going to be strong on constitutional interpretation.
Surely we should expect more conviction from a Supreme Court nominee, especially one who will be case-selective within his Court!
Again... I don't think he is a liberal! Simply he will be a Justice with many "restraints". One of them? Row v Wade. Anyway, we will see...
Truth be known Bloomberg is a RINO, his heart is with liberal democRATS. He gets his support from throwing millions around. More reason to support Judge Roberts.
"Again... I don't think he is a liberal! Simply he will be a Justice with many "restraints". One of them? Row v Wade. Anyway, we will see..."
Again... I don't want your opinion.
I want you to state an exact case where he showed "restraint".
You can't base that on what he says to the committee. He has to play the political game with them.
Shows you how far left Bloomberg is for him to oppose Roberts.
Roberts replacing Renquist moves the court to the left, now there are only two conservatives left on the court.
Renquist was a reliable conservative vote, and I will bet anything that Roberts will vote with the liberal bloc on all hot button precedent issues.
Seems like Roberts was picked for big business. If he wanted to pick someone to uphold roe v wade and affirmative action he could have picked a female hispanic or female african american and atracted new voters. Instead Roberts is going to alienate the base and not attract new voters.
To have Roberts toe the dem line when he is replacing a hard core conservative is infuriating.
Bad enough we have Roberts replacing renquist but now Bush is under pressure to replace O'Conner with someone even more liberal than Roberts. Bush never got to replace Renquist because of the time of his death. Instead he has gotten two picks to replace O'Conner.
I believe that the Bush white house thought Roberts was more conservative than he was. They were against picking O'Connell because of his rigid view of stare decisis and I think they read Roberts wrong. Roberts will be conservative only on cases that haven't come before the court before. He is even more liberal than I thought he was because he made great strains to point out that opposing quotas isn't the same as opposing affirmative action. Affirmative action is quotas, the supreme court probably made the situation worse with their rulings.
Affirmative action is against the constitution. Roberts is no originalist. If you want to have affirmative action at least have it for class instead of race.
Ohhh, finally somebody share my opinion on Roberts! Thanks!
Your comments are not making sense.
We will see my friend, just wait...
It's possible he did not know her views. It seems that if views were quite so obvious, Souter would never have been nominated. I don't think you need anyone to tell you that these people keep their mouths shut when they are eying the USSC. Even Helms (who had better access at the time to this type of information) had no idea.
The problem is not only abortion yes or not, I accuse Roberts not having a clear judicial philosophy, most of all not having a conservative view (lost constitution) in the mode of Scalia or Thomas.
And the charge is more important than providing evidence?
PS-I am stepping away. I have to do certain things to prepare for my evening church service.
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.