Bush to Act Fast on Court Nominee : Judiciary: He holds his first meeting in the selection process. Replacing Brennan offers the President a key political opportunity--and potential problems.

President Bush, vowing to move quickly to choose a new member of the Supreme Court, called top advisers together Saturday to begin a selection process that could have a profound impact on a nation divided over abortion, civil rights and the role of religion in public life.

“I’m going to make this determination as quickly as possible,” Bush told reporters as he emerged from the early morning meeting where he discussed possible replacements for retiring Supreme Court Justice William J. Brennan Jr. He refused all comment on those under consideration.

At the 75-minute meeting, which began at 8 a.m., Bush, White House Chief of Staff John H. Sununu, Atty. Gen. Dick Thornburgh and White House Counsel C. Boyden Gray formally opened the selection process. Gray and Thornburgh then continued the discussion later at a one-hour meeting at the Justice Department.

The decision offers Bush a sweeping political opportunity, but at the same time it presents potentially complex political dilemmas.

By choosing an across-the-board conservative who would be likely to allow states to ban abortion, speed up the execution of prisoners and outlaw affirmative action, Bush would appease conservative Republicans, who are angry with him for waffling on his no-new-taxes pledge.

But the selection of such a conservative could embroil the President in a bitterly divisive political fight--just the kind of high-stakes gamble that he has generally sought to avoid.

As Sen. Alan Cranston (D-Calif.) put it, the President “is under pressure from the right, but also from the middle and the left.” He added: “We in the Senate will scrutinize this nomination about as carefully as any we have ever done before because it is so significant in terms of its impact on the court and on society.”

In the words of civil rights activist Ralph Neas of the Leadership Conference, a coalition of civil rights groups, the appointment “will profoundly influence the law of the land well into the 21st Century. In many ways our future as a nation depends on the quality of the President’s judgment over the next few days.”

Bush’s own positions on key issues before the court shed relatively little light on the choice he may make, for the President’s views on many questions have been conservative, but unspecific. Bush has often said, for example, that he opposes “quotas” in civil rights programs but supports affirmative action.

He opposes abortion now, but before becoming Ronald Reagan’s vice president in 1980 told interviewers that he supported the high court’s Roe vs. Wade decision. He has spoken in favor of school prayer, but he has also said he does not want to see the government get involved in religion. Bush strongly supports capital punishment.

In the past, Bush often has expressed admiration for the late Justice Potter Stewart, a close friend of Bush’s family. Stewart personified the centrist moderate faction of the court during his service from 1958 to 1981.

Advocacy groups involved in the controversial issues before the high court lost no time Saturday in serving notice they will fight hard to defend their positions. All are aware of the tremendous stakes involved.

Speaking for anti-abortion conservatives in Bush’s own party, David Rucker, president of Texas Republicans for Life, declared on Saturday: “President Bush should know that the only reason many people voted for him was for this opportunity to swing the court in a conservative, pro-life manner.

“Now, the day has come,” Rucker said.

The National Abortion Rights Action League, on the other hand, reminded Bush that not all GOP voters oppose abortion. “Republicans have vowed that their party can accommodate pro-choice as well as anti-choice proponents. This is the time to put reality behind that rhetoric . . . “ NARAL Executive Director Kate Michelman said.

Thornburgh, Sununu and Gray offered no clues about their advice or Bush’s leanings. But conservative legal activists say they know two possibilities Bush certainly wants to avoid: “another Blackmun” or “another Bork.”

For conservatives, Harry A. Blackmun is the ultimate horror. Appointed by President Richard M. Nixon and touted as a conservative, Justice Blackmun instead became a leading liberal on the court and wrote the landmark Roe vs. Wade ruling legalizing abortion. The lesson here, conservatives say, is that the White House should appoint a judge with a clear track record.

But at the other extreme is the lesson of Robert H. Bork. His track record may have been too clear. Civil rights leaders and Senate Democrats were able to destroy Bork’s nomination by picking apart his many controversial statements and rulings.

After Bush took office last year, Gray and a team of advisers in the White House quietly compiled a list of about 15 possible nominees should a Supreme Court seat become vacant. None of the names have been released but speculation has centered on several Republican appointees to the federal appeals courts.

The most often mentioned candidate is U.S. Solicitor Gen. Kenneth W. Starr, 44, who served five years on the appeals court here in Washington. A moderate and modest conservative with a pleasant manner, Starr has been groomed for the high court. He is obviously conservative, but not strident or offensive.

“You can’t dislike a Ken Starr,” said conservative commentator Bruce Fein. “His style is smooth and winsome, not contrary. And appearances and style mean a lot in this town.”

One new candidate whose name appeared Saturday was David Souter, 50, a Bush appointee to the U.S. appeals court in Boston. In 1983, then-New Hampshire Gov. Sununu had appointed him to the New Hampshire Supreme Court. Souter was briefly considered for the high court by the Ronald Reagan Administration after the defeat of Bork’s nomination.

Other appeals court judges who are often cited include Ralph K. Winter, 54, of New Haven, Conn.; Edith Jones, 41, of Houston, and Patrick Higginbotham, 51, of Dallas. All are considered solid conservatives.

Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist has generally enjoyed a five-member conservative majority since 1988. But on occasion, Justices Sandra Day O’Connor and Byron R. White have split away. Another conservative, however, would give Rehnquist a comfortable margin of safety.

The issues soon to be decided demonstrate the stakes in the decision over who will be given what is likely to be a crucial swing vote:

--Abortion. Four conservatives--Rehnquist, Antonin Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy and White--believe the constitutional right to abortion should be ended, and the matter returned to the states. O’Connor has been willing to let states regulate abortion, but not ban it. With a fifth conservative vote on Rehnquist’s side, the nine-member bench, the court could throw out the right to abortion.

--Affirmative action. Since the 1978 Bakke case, the justices have been bitterly divided on whether giving preferences to blacks and other minorities is unconstitutional reverse discrimination against whites. The same four opponents of the abortion right--Rehnquist, White, Scalia and Kennedy--said last year that affirmative action is unconstitutional, but again O’Connor differed somewhat. She would allow it as a remedy for blatant, past discrimination.

This year, however, when faced with the question of whether Congress could mandate affirmative action simply to give a greater share of contracts to blacks, O’Connor said “no,” but White joined with Brennan’s liberals to uphold the program. With an extra conservative vote, Rehnquist could outlaw any such preferences for minorities.

--Religion in public life. In the 1960s, the court’s liberal bloc insisted that the Constitution demanded a “separation of church and state.” It, therefore, banned official prayers in the public schools and the teaching of “creationism,” as well as public aid to religious schools. Rehnquist believes the government may aid and encourage religion in general, and he would reverse those decisions. With an extra conservative vote, the court would be likely to allow government aid to religious schools, and possibly, permit religious activity in the public schools, most observers believe.

--Freedom of speech, from political dissent to obscenity. Following Brennan’s lead, the court for the last 25 years has zealously protected political protest. In two recent 5-4 rulings, it said protesters have a right to burn the American flag. Meanwhile, the court has also been closely divided on whether cities can outlaw X-rated bookstores and movies. With the recent surge of prosecutions involving allegedly obscene “rap” records and exhibits of photographs by Robert Mapplethorpe, the high court is likely to face this issue again soon. Given an extra conservative vote, legal scholars say, Rehnquist is likely to give prosecutors the authority to punish purveyors of obscenity, as well as radical protesters.

Conservatives in some quarters made no effort to conceal their glee over the prospects of winning these battles. Their statements and press releases revealed confidence that Bush’s eventual choice would reflect their own philosophies.

The Pro-Life Action League went a step further, expressing a hope that Brennan’s resignation would create a “chain reaction that will lead (liberal) Justice Thurgood Marshall and Harry Blackmun to follow in his footsteps.”

Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) said there was “no question the President will try to pick a nominee who shares his own personal philosophy.” Hatch predicted that would mean a “moderate to conservative” nominee.

Staff writers Marlene Cimons and David Lauter contributed to this story.