‘Pure Politics, if Politics Can Be Pure,’ He Says : Reagan Calls Bork Criticism ‘Irrational’

President Reagan on Friday denounced opposition to Supreme Court nominee Robert H. Bork, calling it “pure politics, if politics can be pure,” while groups supporting and opposing Bork issued a flurry of conflicting reports aimed at influencing his confirmation hearings.

“The highly charged rhetoric that is coming from the ranks of those opposing Judge Bork is irrational and totally unjustified,” Reagan said at a Rose Garden ceremony. “Judge Bork is a qualified, highly respected judge. He has a superior intellect, a high mor1634476131individual freedom.”

But Common Cause, the citizens lobby, said in a report Friday that putting Bork on the high court “would be profoundly harmful to the nation” because “he would, if confirmed, seek to . . . drastically reduce the court’s role” in protecting individual rights and liberties.

Kennedy’s Criticism

Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.), a leading Senate critic of Bork, said in a speech at Georgetown University Law Center that Bork “is a judicial hyper-activist, who would overrule dozens of precedents and reverse decades of progress toward greater justice in America.”

Opponents of Bork’s nomination argue that he is an extreme conservative who would use a seat on the high court to advance an agenda for radical changes in American law. His advocates, meanwhile, contend he is a restrained judicial moderate with a record of academic brilliance.

Friday’s unusual outpouring of reports, statements, polls and speeches--including two new pro-Bork reports from the Administration--reflect the view of activists on both sides of the debate that public opinion is still unformed and that the nominee’s fate could depend on which side is able to make its perception stick in the public mind.

Bork is expected to begin his testimony at the Senate Judiciary Committee’s hearings Tuesday afternoon and continue through most of the week. The committee expects to take two to three weeks to complete the hearings, which will be televised on PBS.

Bar Panel Attacked

Also Friday, supporters of the nomination continued their attack on members of an American Bar Assn. panel who voted against Bork this week. Ten members of the ABA’s influential Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary voted to find Bork “well qualified” for the high court job, but four members voted to find him “unqualified” and one stayed neutral.

Bork supporters had been counting on a unanimous ABA endorsement, and opponents regard the four “unqualified” votes--the first since Clement F. Haynsworth Jr.’s nomination in 1969--as a significant boost for their viewpoint.

Administration officials and Senate allies attribute the negative votes to political motivation. Some Bork supporters point to the fact that one of the committee members who voted against him, Philadelphia lawyer Jerome Shestack, had contributed money to the presidential campaign of Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.), a Bork opponent.

Shestack acknowledged having made the contribution but said it was done long before Bork’s nomination. “In any event, what has it to do with anything?” he asked. “When I have a job to do, I do it.”

Three Issues Debated

Committee members have refused to comment directly on why those who voted against Bork did so. But panel sources Friday pointed to three issues that were the subject of lengthy debate in the committee.

Several members, for example, questioned Bork’s role in the Saturday Night Massacre firing of Watergate special prosecutor Archibald Cox. In addition, several were concerned about allegations of ideological bias in Bork’s record in his current job as a federal appeals court judge.

Finally, one committee source said, panel members debated whether Bork’s views on the constitutional protections of civil rights are “so out of the mainstream that they threaten the constitutional process.”

Those same issues probably will be the major points that will be raised in the hearings as both sides attempt to make their case to the public, most of which has not yet made a decision on Bork, according to a poll released Friday by a major union that opposes the nomination, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees.

41% Knew of Bork

Only 41% of registered voters polled said they had heard or read about the nominee. Those who had heard of Bork were split evenly on whether they supported him, and roughly 20% were unsure.

When presented with arguments made by Bork’s opponents, those polled agreed by large majorities that the Senate would be justified in rejecting a nominee who had been shown to be “committed to a narrow philosophy” or who “does not seem to be a fair-minded person.”

Among those who had heard of Bork, a majority of whites, men and Republicans supported him, but blacks, women and Democrats were opposed. The margin among blacks was particularly large, with only 9% saying they support Bork and 77% opposed. The poll, taken Aug. 13 to 17, questioned 1,137 registered voters.