3 New Justices of State High Court Sworn In

Three new members of the California Supreme Court were confirmed and sworn into office Wednesday, replacing the justices rejected by the voters last November and forming a conservative majority on a court that has been dominated by liberals for nearly three decades.

After a daylong hearing, the state Judicial Performance Commission unanimously approved the nominations to the high court of state Appellate Justices John A. Arguelles of Irvine, David N. Eagleson of Long Beach and Marcus M. Kaufman of San Bernardino.

The new associate justices, nominated by Gov. George Deukmejian, fill vacancies created after a bitterly contested election campaign that resulted in the ouster of Chief Justice Rose Elizabeth Bird and Justices Cruz Reynoso and Joseph R. Grodin.

Only Kaufman, the most controversial of the three nominees, encountered significant opposition during the hearing in Los Angeles.

Leaders of two groups--the National Organization for Women and People for the American Way--reiterated charges they made earlier this week that a review of Kaufman’s judicial record indicated hostility toward state anti-discrimination laws and insensitivity to the rights of women.

However, an array of witnesses, including judges, lawyers and family friends, testified to Kaufman’s lack of prejudice of any kind and gave him high praise for his intelligence, productivity and concern for others. And Kaufman himself, answering questions before the commission, strongly denied the charges of bias.

“I have no insensitivity . . . to women’s issues or any racial groups or any persons by virtue of their status in life, background or anything of that nature,” he said.

“I still hold the very strange belief that everyone is entitled to fair treatment by the government and to a fair trial, regardless of whether they are rich or poor, black, white, yellow or red.”

James D. Ward, a Riverside attorney who chairs a State Bar commission that makes non-binding recommendations of judicial candidates, testified that his group had found Kaufman qualified to serve “with distinction” on the high court.

Ward, responding to other charges against Kaufman, said the Bar commission’s investigation had concluded that allegations that Kaufman was biased in favor of growers or other employers were “unfounded.”

Arguelles, Eagleson and Kaufman took the oath of office from Chief Justice Malcolm M. Lucas, who served on the appointments commission with state Atty. Gen. John K. Van de Kamp and state Appellate Justice Lester W. Roth of Los Angeles, senior presiding justice of the state Court of Appeal.

Arguelles, whose nomination was considered first during the hearings, was approved after drawing support from several witnesses, including other judges.

Ward said the Bar commission had found in a survey of members of the California legal community that Arguelles was rated highly for judicial competence and temperament.

Arguelles had shown “superior fitness” to serve on the court, Ward said. “Isolated criticism” that the nominee was excessively “pro-prosecution” was not substantiated, he said.

Arguelles, replying to questions from Van de Kamp, said he had spoken to Deukmejian before his nomination but “at no time discussed whether I had an agenda for the Supreme Court” or how he might rule on issues that go before the justices.

In a brief statement after his confirmation, Arguelles pledged to examine each case that goes before the court “fairly and objectively” and said he will “make every effort to represent all Californians without favoritism for or bias against any political, religious or ethnic groups.”

He took the oath of office holding his hand on a Bible held by his 85-year-old mother, Eva.

In his appearance before the commission, Eagleson, like Arguelles, drew support from fellow judges.

Eagleson acknowledged that he had spoken to the governor before he was nominated to the high court, but he said he had not discussed how he would rule in any cases before the court.

In a previously completed questionnaire that was released at the hearing, Eagleson said he had “no hidden agenda or conscious ideologic predilection” toward serving on the court.

Ward said that the State Bar commission’s survey of the legal community indicated that Eagleson possessed “legendary skills” as an administrator, while receiving some criticism for occasionally displaying a “short temper” as a judge.

The commission, Ward said, had concluded that Eagleson had demonstrated “remarkable” and “extraordinary” skills as a judge.

Expects Long Service

In a brief statement, Eagleson said he looks forward “to a term of extended service on the Supreme Court.”

“I know each of the justices and the justice nominees personally and am totally confident we can work together in collegial harmony,” he said.

“I am sure that the citizens of the state will be happy when the court is again fully staffed so that it can get on with the business of judging.”

The action Wednesday in Los Angeles completed a long court transition process that began Nov. 5 with the unprecedented voter rejection of three members of the court’s long-dominant liberal bloc.

Deukmejian, who led the campaign against Bird and her associates, predicted that the addition of the new justices to the court will lead to a change in the public’s perception of the court.

“By their confirmation today, Justices Arguelles, Eagleson and Kaufman bring to the state’s highest court their impressive reputations for fairness and common sense as well as their records of extensive experience and qualifications.

” I am confident that the reconstituted California Supreme Court, under the able and competent leadership of Chief Justice Malcolm Lucas, will by its actions regain public confidence in the high court,” the governor said in a statement after the confirmations.

As required by the state Constitution, the three new justices, along with Chief Justice Lucas and Justice Edward A. Panelli, will go before the voters in the next gubernatorial election in 1990. The other two members of the court--Justices Stanley Mosk and Allen E. Broussard--are scheduled to be on the ballot in 1998 and 1994, respectively.

The new justices are joining Lucas and Panelli to place the seven-member court in the control of jurists appointed by Deukmejian, a sharp critic of the old court who led the campaign against the three defeated justices. Legal experts expect a gradual but substantial philosophical turn to the right by the new court in the coming years.

Geographic Balance

The addition of the three new members also will bring a shift in the geographic balance of the court, placing Southern Californians in the majority and possibly heralding a new approach by the court to water rights, land-use planning and other environmental and economic issues.

The new justices will bring with them an unusually large collective total of 58 years of experience on the bench.

The 59-year-old Arguelles, the second Latino to serve on the high court, began his career as a judge in 1963 when he was named to the Los Angeles Municipal Court by former Gov. Edmund G. (Pat) Brown. He was elevated to the Los Angeles Superior Court in 1969 by then-Gov. Ronald Reagan and appointed in 1984 by Deukmejian to the state Court of Appeal in Los Angeles.

Eagleson, 62, was named by Reagan to the Los Angeles Superior Court in 1970, later serving as presiding justice of what is the nation’s largest county court system and winning recognition for cutting in half a growing backlog of civil cases that was delaying trials up to five years. He was elevated by Deukmejian to the Court of Appeal in Los Angeles in 1984.

Kaufman, 57, was appointed by Reagan to the Court of Appeal in San Bernardino in 1970. He has been praised by lawyers for his judicial skills and scholarly opinions. But his outspoken remarks, both on the bench and in print, have also attracted a number of critics.

Barbs for Court

In interviews, he had accused the state Supreme Court under Bird of employing a “double standard” favoring plaintiffs over defendants in civil cases. He once remarked that if necessary “I would break my head” to find a legal basis to uphold a criminal conviction of a defendant who was clearly guilty and seeking a reversal on purely technical grounds.

In a 1979 letter to the Los Angeles Daily Journal, a legal newspaper, Kaufman criticized the appointments made to the state’s judiciary by former Gov. Edmund G. Brown Jr., accusing the governor of a “studied campaign . . . to impair or destroy the independence of the judicial branch of government.”

The new court will hear oral arguments for the first time in a five-day session in Los Angeles beginning April 6. A calendar of 29 cases has been set for review, including 19 cases that were argued but not decided by the old court. Ten of the cases involve the death penalty.