2 Groups Will Oppose Nominee to High Court

Organized opposition emerged for the first time Monday to one of Gov. George Deukmejian’s current nominees to the California Supreme Court--state Appellate Justice Marcus M. Kaufman of San Bernardino.

Regional leaders of People for the American Way, a liberal citizens group, and the National Organization for Women said they will formally oppose Kaufman’s nomination when the state Judicial Appointments Commission holds confirmation hearings Wednesday in Los Angeles.

But a wide range of witnesses are scheduled to testify in support of Kaufman--including fellow judges, lawyers, Bar leaders and the president of the California Trial Lawyers Assn., which earlier had considered contesting the nomination. Two other groups, the Western regional National Assn. for the Advancement of Colored People and the United Farm Workers union, said they have decided not to oppose Kaufman.

The governor’s two other nominees to the court--state Appellate Justices John A. Arguelles and David N. Eagleson of Los Angeles--will face only what appears to be token opposition on Wednesday.

The appointments commission includes Chief Justice Malcolm M. Lucas, state Atty. Gen. John K. Van de Kamp and state Appellate Justice Lester W. Roth, senior presiding justice of the state Court of Appeal.

If confirmed as expected, Arguelles, Eagleson and Kaufman would join two other Deukmejian nominees--Lucas and Justice Edward A. Panelli. Their addition to the court would place conservatives and moderates in control of a seven-member court that has been dominated by liberals in the recent past.

The governor led a campaign against three liberal members of the court that resulted in the voter defeat last November of Chief Justice Rose Elizabeth Bird and Justices Cruz Reynoso and Joseph R. Grodin.

Kaufman, regarded as the most conservative and outspoken of the three nominees, has been expected to be the most controversial as well.

Katherine Spillar, president of the Los Angeles chapter of NOW, said in an interview Monday that the group’s review of Kaufman’s judicial record indicates “hostility” toward state anti-discrimination statutes and a “genuine reluctance” to enforce such laws.

Spillar cited an opinion written by Kaufman last May in a case in which a state appellate panel struck down as discriminatory a local homeowners association rule requiring residents to be at least 45 years old.

Kaufman, in a concurring opinion, agreed that state Supreme Court decisions required the covenant to be invalidated but he called those rulings “legally and practically inane.”

“I think it is disgraceful the law permits a person to buy property with full knowledge of restrictions on its use . . . and yet permits the purchaser to later repudiate and ignore such restrictions with impunity.”

Women’s Rights

Spillar also objected to a concurring opinion that Kaufman wrote in 1982 in a widely publicized case over whether a wife who helped finance her husband’s way through medical school was entitled to a share of his earnings in a divorce settlement.

The appeal court first upheld such an entitlement for the wife but then later reversed itself, with Kaufman writing a separate opinion supporting the reversal.

“We’re very, very concerned about these tendencies in his decisions,” she said. “We’re afraid he’ll take us backwards in protecting women’s rights and civil rights.”

Ramona Ripston, vice president and Western regional director for People for the American Way, said Kaufman’s sharply worded criticisms of the state Supreme Court exhibited a “lack of restraint” and declared that the nominee lacks the “integrity and balance” required of a judge.

Ripston also pointed to recent reports indicating that Kaufman had intervened with state officials to help a family friend enroll in a state-authorized training program for foreign-trained physicians. Kaufman acknowledged writing letters to the officials but denied any impropriety.

“Judges have to avoid even the appearance of impropriety and what he did for his doctor friend was not in keeping with that,” she said.

First for Group

Previously, People for the American Way has opposed the nomination to a federal appeals court of Daniel Manion, as well as some other Reagan Administration appointments. Opposing Kaufman will represent the first participation by the organization in a state judicial nomination process.

Nathaniel Colley Sr. of Sacramento, Western regional counsel for the NAACP, said the organization had discussed opposing Kaufman because of the judge’s acknowledgement in an interview that a friend had once described him as a “redneck with a high IQ.” Kaufman said later he had not described himself that way and would classify himself as “a conservative with an open mind.”

Colley said Monday he was satisfied that the remark was not made in a racial context. “We could find no evidence he harbors racial bias,” Colley said, “and we will not challenge the nomination.”

Among the witnesses scheduled to testify in favor of Kaufman is Browne Greene of Los Angeles, president of the California Trial Lawyers Assn., who previously had indicated that the group might oppose the judge. Greene said Monday that the 5,400-member group had concluded that Kaufman could serve “in a fair and impartial manner.”

Others Scheduled

Other witnesses set to speak in Kaufman’s behalf include Judge Dorothy W. Nelson of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals; state Appellate Justices Robert Kingsley of Los Angeles and Joseph B. Campbell of San Bernardino; retired state Appellate Justice Margaret J. Morris of San Bernardino. Orville A. Armstrong of Los Angeles, the president of the State Bar, will appear on his own behalf.

Among those set to testify for Arguelles are state Appellate Justices Arleigh Woods and Eugene McClosky of Los Angeles; Superior Judge Jack E. Goertzen of Los Angeles; and former Los Angeles Dist. Atty. Robert H. Philibosian.

State Appellate Justice Robert Feinerman of Los Angeles and retired Appellate Justice Richard Schauer are among the witnesses scheduled to speak in support of Eagleson.