Meese Reportedly Says Siegan Bid Is Doomed

Atty. Gen. Edwin Meese III on Thursday told Bernard H. Siegan, his close friend and controversial choice for a federal judgeship, that his nomination is doomed, Justice Department sources said.

The sources said Meese spoke by telephone with Siegan, who told the attorney general that he wanted a few days to consider whether to have his nomination to the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in California withdrawn.

Siegan, a professor at the University of San Diego Law School whose nomination has been pending before the Senate Judiciary Committee for 14 months, declined to comment Thursday.

Department officials have conceded privately for months that Siegan would not win confirmation, but said that Meese, who taught with Siegan at the University of San Diego, wanted to press ahead with the nomination.

However, it was clear that a solid majority of the 14-member Judiciary Committee was lined up against Siegan, and Sen. Alan Cranston (D-Calif.) earlier this week signaled his intention to put a “hold” on Siegan’s nomination if the committee sent it to the floor.

‘Intentionally Stalled’

Sen. Strom Thurmond (R-S.C.) complained at a committee meeting Thursday about the delay in acting on Siegan’s nomination, saying it appeared that a vote “is being intentionally stalled. . . . Vote him up or down,” Thurmond said. “He’s entitled to a vote.”

Cranston and two other Democratic senators from states covered by the 9th Circuit, Spark M. Matsunaga of Hawaii and Brock Adams of Washington, said in a letter to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.) that Siegan lacked “fundamental qualifications” for a judge.

In addition, sources said, 9th Circuit Judge Joseph T. Sneed wrote to Meese last week complaining that the court’s work was being hampered by three unfilled vacancies: the Siegan nomination; the nomination of Associate Atty. Gen. Stephen S. Trott, confirmed by the Senate on Thursday, and the seat of newly installed Justice Anthony M. Kennedy.

Liberal groups that spearheaded the fight against rejected Supreme Court nominee Robert H. Bork had teamed up to defeat Siegan, arguing that the views of the 63-year-old libertarian made Bork appear moderate.

Siegan shares Bork’s view that judges should decide constitutional cases based strictly on the “original intent” of the framers, but took original intent further than Bork in arguing, for example, that Brown vs. Board of Education, the 1954 ruling that “separate but equal” public schools violate the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection, “is not based on original understanding.” Siegan said the case should have been decided on other grounds.

In addition, unlike Bork, Siegan would give judges broad power to use “substantive due process” to strike down welfare and regulatory statutes that interfere with economic liberties, a view that Bork has said “works a massive shift away from democracy and toward judicial rule.” That view of “substantive due process”--the basis for the Supreme Court’s 1973 abortion ruling--made Siegan controversial among a number of conservatives as well.

In a hearing last month before the Judiciary Committee, Siegan repeated his promise to abide by Supreme Court precedent, urging the committee to disregard his extensive criticism of the high court. Siegan, who has never tried a case in federal court or argued an appeal, also faced critical questioning from senators about his lack of court experience.