‘Bizarre, Radical Views’ of Nominee for Judgeship Hit

People for the American Way charged today that a California law professor nominated to be a federal appeals judge has “bizarre and radical views” on free speech, religion and civil rights.

Setting the stage for what is expected to be the bitterest confirmation fight since Robert H. Bork’s Supreme Court nomination was rejected by the Senate in October, the liberal group said the writings of the nominee, Bernard H. Siegan, reflect a far-right outlook that has no place on the federal appellate bench.

“His philosophy would make even Robert Bork blush,” said Arthur Kropp, president of the 270,000-member civil liberties organization.

Siegan, 63, a University of San Diego law professor described by Justice Department officials as a longtime acquaintance of Atty. Gen. Edwin Meese III, was selected by President Reagan last Feb. 2 to fill a vacancy on the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals--the court on which the current Supreme Court nominee, Anthony M. Kennedy, has served since 1975.

Philosophy Called Extreme

Siegan’s nomination has been delayed by Senate Judiciary Committee members who are concerned that his judicial philosophy is too extreme and by the protracted battle over Bork and efforts to fill the Supreme Court vacancy created by Justice Lewis F. Powell’s resignation in June.

Justice Department spokesman Terry H. Eastland disputed the critics, saying that Reagan has made it clear he wants federal court nominees who practice “judicial restraint” and that Siegan “would be in this general ballpark.”

People for the American Way, which also criticized Siegan’s lack of federal courtroom experience, said in a 38-page report that the nominee’s extensive published works show that he believes that Presidents have the constitutional right to abridge free speech and that states have the authority to recognize an official religion and to discriminate against women and minorities.

“As is documented in this report,” the group said, “Siegan’s application of his judicial philosophy results in bizarre and radical views on a broad range of fundamental constitutional doctrines and lines of precedent.”

Discrimination Stand

For example, in a 1987 book, Siegan wrote that the 14th Amendment, cited by the Supreme Court in striking down laws that discriminate on the basis of race or sex, “did not apply to suffrage, juries or schools.”

Siegan also wrote that the First Amendment ban on government establishment of religion applies only to the federal government and actually “safeguards the powers of the states to sponsor or further religions of their own choosing.”