Chief Justice Vote Splits Top Democrats

Senate Democrats split ranks Wednesday over the nomination of John G. Roberts Jr. to be chief justice, with the Senate Judiciary Committee’s top Democrat announcing his support just one day after the chamber’s top Democrat said he would oppose Roberts.

The division between the leaders -- Sen. Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont and Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada -- underscored that Democrats have been unable to devise a unified strategy on the nomination, which comes to its first vote today, in the committee. The full Senate is expected to vote next week.

Following Reid and Leahy, other Senate Democrats began announcing their plans. Among those who said they would oppose Roberts, four -- Barbara Boxer of California, Jon Corzine of New Jersey, and Edward M. Kennedy and John F. Kerry of Massachusetts -- are from states that in recent years have regularly elected Democratic senators. Roberts’ Democratic supporters include Sens. Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico, Tim Johnson of South Dakota and Max Baucus of Montana -- states that are Republican-dominated or that have closely divided electorates.

With Republicans controlling the Senate and Democrats apparently unwilling to filibuster, Roberts’ confirmation has not been in real doubt. But the question of how Democrats would vote on the nominee, and how they might try to leverage that vote to influence President Bush’s choice for a second vacancy on the Supreme Court, has incited debate among Democrats.

“Judge Roberts is a man of integrity,” Leahy said in the Senate, explaining his decision to vote in favor of the 50-year-old federal appellate judge, who spent nearly 20 hours under committee questioning during nomination hearings last week. “I can only take him at his word that he does not have an ideological agenda.”

Roberts’ Senate opponents said his early writing suggested a possible lack of commitment to civil rights.

“The rights and freedoms that have made America a light to the rest of the world could be in serious jeopardy,” Boxer said on the Senate floor. “With so many of our fundamental rights hanging in the balance, it is not good enough to simply roll the dice, hoping a nominee has changed his past views. It’s not good enough to think, ‘This is the best we can expect from this president.’ ”

California’s senior senator, Dianne Feinstein, a Democrat and a member of the Judiciary Committee, said she would announce her intended vote at the committee’s meeting today.

Of the panel’s eight Democrats, only Leahy and Kennedy have said how they will vote. The panel has 10 Republicans.

The White House welcomed Leahy’s support for Roberts.

“It’s encouraging that some Democrats acknowledge that having a conservative judicial approach is not grounds for voting against someone who is qualified in terms of intellect, temperament and integrity,” White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said.

Leahy and other Senate leaders, including Reid, Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) and Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.), had breakfast with Bush at the White House and discussed potential successors to retiring Justice Sandra Day O’Connor. Roberts is nominated to fill the seat of William H. Rehnquist, the late chief justice.

Specter and Reid urged the president to delay that nomination so senators could see Roberts settle in first. O’Connor is prepared to continue on the bench until the court’s next term ends in June, Specter said.

“It would be quite a sacrifice for her, but she’s prepared to do it if she is asked,” Specter told reporters after meeting with Bush. “By next June we’ll know a lot more about Judge Roberts ... than we do today.”

But White House spokesman Scott McClellan indicated that the president planned to move “in a timely manner” with the second nomination.

Asked about Specter’s prediction that the second confirmation debate was likely to be more contentious, McClellan replied, “That’s going to be up to members of the Senate.”

Roberts continued seeking Democratic support on Capitol Hill, meeting with Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois, who later said he was undecided on Roberts.

“I think he will be a respecter of legal precedent and legal reasoning, and that solves about 95% of the cases,” said Obama, who taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago. “But the cases that get to the Supreme Court are the 5% that aren’t easily answered, and that’s where you fall back on judgment and perspective.”

Some Democrats have said that Roberts’ legal credentials are impeccable but express doubts about his attitude toward the poor and disadvantaged, whose rights are often at issue in Supreme Court cases.

Civil liberties organizations and other advocacy groups have lobbied against Roberts, arguing that the Democratic Party’s core supporters will be alienated when they see Roberts take positions on the court with which they disagree. The safe vote for Democrats, they have said, is no.

Times staff writer Warren Vieth contributed to this report.