Democrats Forgo Discord on Court Pick, at Least for Now

Senate Democrats, after months of preparing for a full-scale fight with President Bush over a Supreme Court nominee, found themselves Wednesday instead weighing whether or how to battle his choice of John G. Roberts Jr.

The problem Democrats face is that Roberts, a well-known Washington lawyer before becoming a federal appellate court judge in 2003, appears to be more conservative than they would like but less ideological than they had feared.

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) set the tone the day after Bush selected Roberts, taking pains to describe the nominee as an accomplished lawyer and a “very nice man,” but withholding judgment on whether he deserved to serve as one of the country’s nine most powerful judges.

“Ever since Justice [Sandra Day] O’Connor announced her retirement [July 1], I have called on the president to choose a nominee who can unite the country, not divide it,” Reid said. “It remains to be seen whether John Roberts fits that description. I hope that he does, and I look forward to giving him the opportunity to make his case to the American people.”

Several Democrats complained that Roberts had served as a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit for only two years, and therefore had a limited judicial record. As a result, they were considering requesting copies of material he wrote when he served as deputy solicitor general in the Justice Department under President George H.W. Bush.

“Given that his record of his own views is rather sparse ... those kinds of documents should be available to us,” Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) said.

The White House has resisted requests for internal executive branch documents in other matters, and senators from both parties said access to such documents could become a point of contention.

“That’s what’s called hitting below the belt, because they know that no self-respecting administration would give away confidential materials,” Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) said. “I hope they won’t play the same cheap old tricks on this.”

For the most part, Democrats adopted a carefully calibrated wait-and-see approach toward Roberts.

“The fact is that Republicans would like nothing more than for us to come out with some harsh rhetoric attacking Judge Roberts. But we’re not going to fall for that,” said Jim Manley, Reid’s staff director. “We’re going to continue to raise questions about some of the opinions he has written, but we want to wait for the Judiciary Committee to finish their investigation, and we’re not going to prejudge what happens in the committee.”

As a judge, Roberts has regularly sided with the Bush administration on cases involving national security and the war on terrorism. He also has supported limits on use of the federal Endangered Species Act.

The Democrats’ measured reaction appeared to startle some Republicans, who had predicted an immediate partisan attack against the president’s choice.

“It’s certainly welcome,” Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) said. “I hope it continues.”

Roberts began his own confirmation effort Wednesday by meeting briefly with key senators.

Meanwhile, advocacy groups on the right and the left geared up for a fight over Roberts’ nomination.

On the left, the abortion rights group NARAL Pro-Choice America distributed petitions on the Supreme Court steps opposing Roberts and posted an e-mail form on its Internet home page for supporters to contact senators.

Although Roberts’ position on abortion rights is unclear, NARAL President Nancy Keenan said, “The radical right is jubilant, almost giddy. That tells us this nominee is not as moderate as they want to paint him.”

As deputy solicitor general, Roberts co-wrote a brief arguing that the 1973 high court decision establishing a federal right to abortion “was wrongly decided and should be overruled.” But during his 2003 confirmation hearing for the appeals court, he said the Roe vs. Wade decision was “the settled law of the land.”

On the right, evangelical leaders promised to marshal their forces to back Roberts, whom they described as a known quantity -- unlike Justice David H. Souter when he was nominated by George H.W. Bush in 1990.

“Justice Souter was what some called a black box. No one knew what was in it,” said James Dobson, head of the Colorado-based evangelical group Focus on the Family. “I think we do know a lot about Judge Roberts from his life, from his record, from the things that he has stood for. And we feel much more comfortable with this nomination than we would have with Justice Souter.”

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), who joined her colleagues two years ago in voting unanimously to confirm Roberts for the circuit court, complained about the pressure already coming from interest groups on both sides.

“You have two sides on the extremes that want to go to battle with each other. The merit of the battle is almost not the point,” Feinstein said.

A confirmation vote on Roberts could prove a tough decision for at least one moderate Republican, Sen. Lincoln Chafee (R-R.I.), who faces reelection in 2006.

Chafee, who favors abortion rights and represents a strongly Democratic state, told reporters he had already received a call from a NARAL official. “They weren’t heavy-handed at this stage,” Chafee said, but added that the caller urged him to carefully consider his vote.

The 14 centrist senators who this year defused a pre-nomination showdown over whether Democrats could filibuster judicial nominees planned to meet today to discuss the choice of Roberts.

But the senators gave little indication that, barring unexpected revelations, they would consider the nomination to constitute the “extraordinary circumstances” that could trigger a filibuster.

“So far at this point in time, I see nothing that constitutes an extraordinary circumstance in John Roberts’ background,” said Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.), one of the leaders of the bipartisan group that has come to be known as the Gang of 14.

As for discussion of a potential filibuster, Nelson said: “I don’t hear any whispers.”

Republican and Democratic staff members on the Judiciary Committee were drafting a questionnaire for Roberts that would constitute the first step in their review of his record.

Senators in both parties expressed hope that the process of reviewing his writings, holding preliminary hearings and debating his record would go smoothly and that nomination hearings could begin in late August or early September.

Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said he would permit rigorous questioning of the nominee’s judicial philosophy, especially his “respect for precedent.”

But Specter warned his colleagues that no amount of vetting could predict how someone would rule once becoming a justice.

“History is full of surprises,” he said.

Early Wednesday, Roberts had coffee with Bush at the White House. As they emerged to meet briefly with reporters, the president said he told the judge “things were off to a very good start for his nomination.”

Bush urged the Senate to proceed with the confirmation process “in a dignified, civil way.” He also said, “I’m confident the senators will come to realize what I’ve come to realize: We’re lucky to have a man of such wisdom and intellectual strength willing to serve our country.”

The announcement of Roberts’ nomination was a disappointment to some Latino leaders, noting that Bush had passed over Atty. Gen. Alberto R. Gonzales, among other Latinos.

The National Assn. of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials said in a statement that it regretted that Bush “did not seize the opportunity to nominate a Latino from the vast pool of qualified candidates to serve on the United States Supreme Court.”

Some women’s groups said they were disappointed Bush had not named a woman to replace O’Connor.

Even O’Connor, the first woman to serve on the Supreme Court, expressed some discontent on that point.

On a fishing trip in Idaho, she told the Spokane, Wash., Spokesman-Review: “He’s good in every way, except he’s not a woman.”

*

Times staff writers Mary Curtius, Janet Hook, Edwin Chen, Nicole Gaouette and Peter Wallsten contributed to this report.