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.