If anybody doubted Mayor Bloomberg's commitment to his
pro-choice supporters, they should be answered by his comments on
Judge John Roberts's nomination to the Supreme Court. Even though
the mayor has absolutely no part to play in the selection of the
new chief justice of the Supreme Court, he chose to proffer his
opinion to solidify his liberal support in both parties.
"What I was waiting for, as were many Americans, was a clear
affirmation that the life-altering decision as to whether or not
to have a child must be a woman's decision," Mr. Bloomberg
said in his statement. "Unfortunately, Judge Roberts's
response did not indicate a commitment to protect a woman's right
to choose."
The mayor is making the same mistake that Senator Schumer is
making by demonstrating that when it comes to conservative
judicial nominees, there is clearly a double standard.
During his confirmation hearings, Judge Roberts declined to state
his position on Roe v. Wade, saying, "I should stay away
from discussions of particular issues that are likely to come
before the court again." This is apparently what upsets Mr.
Bloomberg, but Judge Roberts is exactly correct. As was Ruth
Bader Ginsburg in her confirmation hearings. While defending the
right to an abortion when questioned about a speech she had given
on the topic, she also declined to comment on issues that she
said might come before the Supreme Court. She got away with it.
Senator Kennedy is now vigorously opposing Judge Roberts's
confirmation, but when Thurgood Marshall was up for confirmation,
Mr. Kennedy at a 1967 press conference said:
"We have to respect that any nominee to the Supreme Court
would have to defer any comments on any matters which are either
before the court or very likely to be before the court. This has
been a procedure which has been followed in the past and is one
which I think is based upon sound legal precedent." Since
Mr. Kennedy's words have been captured on video, one wonders why
the senator hasn't been asked about his flipflop in his grilling
of Judge Roberts.
Senator McCain was on the Sean Hannity radio show recently and
explained that he voted for Justice Ginsburg even though he
disagreed with her on many issues. She was the general counsel
for the ACLU and her social views could rightly be called radical
feminism. Nevertheless, Mr. McCain said, he voted for her
confirmation on the grounds that "elections have
consequences," and the president has the right to nominate
whomever he regards as the right candidate.
Well, that may be how the Republicans think, but the Democrats
and so-called moderate Republicans like Mr. Bloomberg are not
going to let fairness rule the day because the courts are the
last bastion of power liberals control. They certainly aren't
winning in the democratic process. Unfortunately, their
desperation may even be skirting the bounds of treachery, and I
am wondering if our Senator Schumer will be caught by his
obsession against President Bush's conservative nominees. What's
behind it all?
Last year, Manuel Miranda, a Republican counsel, discovered
strategy memos to Mr. Schumer and other Democratic senators on a
computer shared with Republicans. He was condemned by Democrats
for reading what they considered private information, but not
much fuss was made about what was in those memos. Mr. Miranda
thought they were evidence of collusion and a corruption of the
judiciary process.
Those memos came from various advocacy groups like NARAL
Pro-Choice America (the group formerly known as the National
Abortion Rights Action League), People for the American Way, the
Alliance for Justice, the American Association of University
Women, the National Women's Law Center, the National Partnership
for Women and Families, and the Leadership Conference on Civil
Rights.
The memos all discussed the strategy for attacking Mr. Bush's
choices for the federal courts. One June 2002 memo addressed to
Senators Schumer, Kennedy, Durbin, and Cantwell read: "We
agree with Senator Leahy that [Miguel] Estrada should be
scheduled for September 19th. ...This will give the groups time
to complete their research."
Another memo dated January 30, 2003,summarized the results of a
meeting with Democratic judiciary committee members and Senator
Daschle in which all agreed on the necessity of filibustering
Judge Estrada.
I'm not a lawyer, nor am I an expert on the Constitution, but I'm
pretty sure that having outside agencies and organizations
directly influencing the confirmation of judicial nominees is a
no-no.
For the sake of preserving the authenticity of the judicial
confirmation process, we should all be curious about what Mr.
Miranda read and what happened to those memos. Likewise, our
mayor should steer clear of entangling alliances. He hasn't been
re-elected yet.