Cranston Will Try to Block Reagan Choice for Court

In a move that could signal defeat for one of President Reagan’s most controversial judicial nominees, Sen. Alan Cranston and two other Senate Democrats declared Monday that they will oppose UC San Diego law professor Bernard H. Siegan’s bid for a federal appeals court seat and will seek to block any Senate action on the nomination.

Cranston and the other senators wrote that Siegan has “minimal” legal experience, has “virtually no” background as a litigator in federal court and “very limited, if any, exposure as a practicing attorney to the issues which arise in a federal courtroom.”

Historically, the opposition of a senator from the nominee’s home state is usually enough to kill his chances for confirmation. According to his staff, Cranston plans to put a “hold” on Siegan’s nomination if the Senate Judiciary Committee acts on it, making it unlikely that it would ever be scheduled for a Senate vote.

Reagan nominated Siegan, a longtime friend of Atty. Gen. Edwin Meese III, early last year for a seat on the San Francisco-based appeals court, which has jurisdiction over federal courts in California and eight other Western states. The nomination almost immediately encountered opposition because of Siegan’s conservative views.

The nominee “does not satisfy . . . fundamental qualifications” to be a judge, Sens. Cranston, Spark M. Matsunaga of Hawaii and Brock Adams of Washington state charged in a letter to Judiciary Committee Chairman Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.).

The letter, which Cranston released Monday, appears to be part of a strategy by Siegan’s opponents to increase pressure on the nominee to withdraw his bid for a seat on the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals before a vote is taken.

The correspondence “represents ever-growing opposition to this nomination,” said Nan Aron, director of the liberal Alliance for Justice, which has organized opposition to the nomination.

Siegan declined to respond to the charges in the letter, saying he would stand by the defenses of his record that he has previously offered in Senate hearings. He did, however, deny that he has any plans to give up.

When asked Monday if Cranston’s letter would cause him to withdraw, Siegan replied: “Of course not.” But he said that “I will consider at all times what my options are,” adding: “If the situation seems to change, I have the right to exercise my options.”

The Judiciary Committee has repeatedly postponed acting on Siegan’s nomination. A plan to vote on the nomination Thursday has been shelved, sources familiar with the committee’s deliberations said, and no action on the nomination appears likely before late April.

At a hearing last month, Siegan argued that his experience as a teacher of constitutional law at San Diego was a better preparation for an appeals court judge than litigation. But “there’s no question I have limited trial and litigation experience,” he conceded.

Siegan, who was a successful real estate lawyer in Chicago before becoming a law professor, has been most controversial for advocating broad powers for courts to overturn zoning and other forms of economic regulation. In a 1981 book, he argued that such laws conflict with constitutionally protected rights of private property owners.

Nominee’s Views

At the same time, Siegan has argued for narrowing judicial power in areas such as the separation of church and state, where, he contends, the judiciary has gone too far in striking down state and local laws.

Those views indicate “an extreme judicial philosophy,” the three senators charged.

But Siegan, at an earlier hearing, insisted that he would in all cases follow the precedents set by the Supreme Court even if he disagreed with them.

“I’m not there (on the appeals court) to tell the world how it should run,” he said. “I wouldn’t dream of imposing my will over that of the Supreme Court.”