‘Politics’ Seen in Bar Panel’s Vote on Bork

Supporters of Supreme Court nominee Robert H. Bork, shaken by an influential American Bar Assn. panel’s split vote on rating the nomination, lashed out Thursday, accusing those who voted against Bork of “playing politics.”

“No fair-minded person, no intellectually responsible person could look at Robert Bork and find him to be unqualified to sit on the Supreme Court,” Justice Department spokesman Patrick S. Korten said. “I can only conclude that the negative votes were politically motivated, despite the fact that the ABA rules require that not be taken into consideration.”

Such strong reactions reflect a concern by Reagan Administration officials that the vote on Bork by the ABA Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary could lend support to Bork’s adversaries and undermine a key pro-Bork argument, that the controversial appeals court judge is universally well regarded in the legal profession.

Majority Backed Bork

A majority of 10 committee members voted to find Bork “well qualified” for the high court, one member took a neutral position and four voted to find him “not qualified.”

The vote marked the first ABA dissent on a high court nominee since three panel members voted in 1971 to rate William H. Rehnquist as “qualified” to be an associate justice but “not among the best qualified.” Moreover, it included the first outright opposition since seven members voted in 1969 to disqualify Clement F. Haynsworth Jr. because of conflict-of-interest allegations.

The split on the panel over Bork “is very significant,” said an aide to one key uncommitted Republican senator. “Everyone was always assuming that (Bork) was going to get a unanimous ‘well qualified’ rating by the ABA and that all the (subsequent) discussion that would go on would be against that backdrop,” he said.

‘Mainstream’ Arguments

The dissension means that “Bork won’t be able to come in with the presumption” that there are no “mainstream” arguments against him, the Senate aide said.

Traditionally, the committee’s votes have carried significant weight in influencing consideration of judicial nominations. Last year, for example, the Administration and Senate allies used a unanimous vote of approval by the panel as a key argument in support of Rehnquist’s nomination to be chief justice.

In Bork’s case, the Administration emphasized the positive. President Reagan was “pleased with the endorsement” of Bork by the ABA panel, White House spokesman Marlin Fitzwater said on Air Force One en route to Miami for Reagan’s meeting with Pope John Paul II.

Other Administration officials and members of Congress, however, expressed surprise and anger at the large negative vote on Bork.

Hatch Tells Support

“Four of them are willing to play politics with this,” said Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah), one of Bork’s chief supporters. Bork, he said, is “superbly qualified” and “I don’t see any way they can substantively criticize him on his record.”

“Let’s put this into perspective: They have given him the highest rating by an overwhelming majority,” Hatch added.

ABA President Robert MacCrate of New York denied the accusations of political motivation by the association panel. “Politics is not a factor in the committee’s deliberations,” he said in a statement.

The four panel members who rated Bork not qualified are Samuel Williams of Los Angeles, Joan M. Hall of Chicago, Jerome J. Shestack of Philadelphia and John D. Lane of Washington, sources familiar with the committee’s deliberations said. Committee members refused to comment directly on what factors led the minority to oppose Bork.

Privately, however, sources suggested that several members believe Bork’s record calls his “judicial temperament” into question. Judicial temperament, professional competence and integrity are the three criteria on which the panel’s rules call for judging judicial nominees.

Staff writer Ronald J. Ostrow contributed to this story.