Senate Panel Signals Opposition to Court Confirmation of Siegan

A skeptical Senate Judiciary Committee sharply questioned appeals court nominee Bernard H. Siegan on Thursday and signaled that the conservative legal scholar will not receive a favorable recommendation for confirmation.

Committee Democrats, who control the panel and appear to be lined up solidly against the 63-year-old Siegan, attacked his lack of court experience and his long list of fundamental disagreements with current Supreme Court doctrines.

“He will not get a positive vote in the committee,” said panel member Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa), a supporter of President Reagan’s choice for the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in California. “The best we can hope for is 51 votes” when the nomination is put before the full Senate.

Republicans acknowledged that salvaging the nomination will be very difficult. One other Reagan judicial nominee has survived a negative vote by the committee--Daniel Manion of Indiana--but he did so in 1986 before the Democrats won control of the Senate.

Committee staff aides said the panel will decide later this week whether to hold another hearing or to simply call for a vote.

“The talk on the other side (the Democratic majority) is that Siegan has no chance,” said one Republican aide. “It’s not even clear he has strong support on this side.”

Committee Democrats who led the successful battle to defeat conservative Supreme Court nominee Robert H. Bork last year told Siegan that they feared his narrow interpretation of the Constitution could threaten a range of accepted legal protections.

“I’m concerned that if you were confirmed, you will find a way to implement your views,” Sen. Howard Metzenbaum (D-Ohio) told Siegan, who in past writings has derided the Supreme Court for upholding property restrictions such as zoning and rent control and for striking down school prayer and abortion prohibitions.

Several committee members expressed amazement at a newspaper article in which Siegan, a San Diego law professor, said a main impact of the 1964 Civil Rights Act forbidding job discrimination against women and minorities has been “the imposition of higher prices and inflation.”

‘Poses a Great Risk’

“I think it poses a great risk to our system of justice to confirm someone who disagrees with so much of American constitutional law,” Metzenbaum concluded.

Repeatedly, Siegan told the committee that if confirmed, he will follow the current Supreme Court doctrines and set aside his own views.

“I am an honorable man,” Siegan said. “I would follow the law without reservation or qualification.”

At one point, Siegan said he would resign a judicial post if he were required to enforce a Supreme Court doctrine that he believed to be “unwise or unjust.” Later, he amended this statement to say that he would resign if faced with an “unconscionable” law, citing Nazi measures that led to the extermination of Jews.

Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), who presided over the hearing, noted that Siegan has never been a judge or legal arbitrator in any court and has never participated in any case in federal court. Moreover, he is not a member of the Bar in California, where he has lived since 1973.

“There’s no question I have limited trial and litigation experience,” Siegan said, but he contended that his work as a constitutional scholar and teacher at the University of San Diego is better preparation for the bench.

Housing and Urban Development Secretary Samuel Pierce introduced Siegan to the committee and lauded his view that an end to zoning would spur an increase in housing for the poor.

Before moving to San Diego, Siegan was a Chicago real estate developer and he first gained attention in academic circles by arguing that government limits on development should be abolished.

Attacks by City Officials

But those views have also prompted attacks on Siegan by a number of city officials in the West, including Los Angeles Mayor Tom Bradley, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors and Phoenix Mayor Terry Goddard.

“Mr. Siegan’s iconoclastic views would wreak havoc on the efforts of cities within the 9th Circuit--such as Los Angeles and San Francisco--to protect the environment and effectively manage growth,” Bradley said in a letter to the committee.

Of the committee members, only Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) spoke up for Siegan on Thursday. He complained that committee Democrats are setting up a “political litmus test” for court nominees.

To date, Manion has been the only Reagan appeals court nominee to receive a negative vote from the committee.