Bush May Avoid Bitter Confirmation Struggle : Senate: Democrats join Republicans in predicting that Souter will not prompt an election-year squabble.

In selecting a respected but little-known jurist with almost no track record on the explosive issue of abortion, President Bush has substantially reduced the risk of a bitter election-year battle over his choice to succeed retired Supreme Court Justice William J. Brennan Jr.

While nothing can guarantee that the nominee--former New Hampshire Supreme Court Justice David H. Souter--will experience smooth sailing at his Senate confirmation hearings, Democrats as well as Republicans predicted Monday that Souter probably will be confirmed without a drawn-out struggle unless there are unforeseen developments.

Indeed, the selection of Souter seemed likely to accomplish the politically difficult feat of simultaneously stymieing liberals, pleasing foes of abortion and doctrinaire conservatives and at the same time reassuring moderate Republican political strategists who had worried that the selection of an outspoken anti-abortionist could damage GOP candidates next November.

In the Senate, for example, Ohio Democrat Howard M. Metzenbaum, a liberal who would be likely to lead any attack against a conservative nominee, declared: “This senator has heard nothing negative. I have certainly heard he has a very strong positive record.”

Similarly, Sen. Dennis DeConcini (D-Ariz.), a moderate who has been a swing vote on previous Supreme Court nominations, said that Souter “appears to be very, very capable” and probably is headed for confirmation.

Such sentiments were reinforced by the strong support Souter’s nomination received from Sen. Warren G. Rudman (R-N.H.), widely respected in the Senate by both Republicans and Democrats.

As a veteran judge first on the New Hampshire Superior Court and later on the state’s highest court, Souter--who was appointed to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals by Bush earlier this year but was not confirmed until April--has had little direct involvement in the major national issues that have embroiled the U.S. Supreme Court in controversy.

That means that liberals, while uneasy about what they assume will be Souter’s conservative bent, may be hard-pressed to find concrete grounds for opposing him--as leaders of several abortion rights and liberal groups privately acknowledged Monday night.

Bush himself did nothing to allay their unease when, during his White House appearance with Souter, he made a point of praising Brennan, a hero to many liberals, as “one of the greatest figures of our age.”

In selecting Souter, Bush said, he had “looked for the same dedication to public service and strength of intellect exemplified by Justice Brennan.”

Conservatives, for their part, are likely to be reassured by the fact that Souter--while having little or no public record on the issues they consider vital--has the strong support of White House Chief of Staff John H. Sununu, whose conservative credentials are unassailable.

Republican conservatives have been upset with Bush on a number of issues, including his decision to renounce his no-new-taxes pledge. But even long-time Bush critic Richard A. Viguerie, chairman of United Conservatives of America, said that the President, by nominating Souter, had taken “the first step in repairing the split between himself and the conservatives.”

And veteran Democratic strategist Richard A. Moe conceded that, considering Souter’s credentials, “if he doesn’t have a record on abortion, he should be confirmable without a big battle. And if he’s Sununu’s guy, Bush is feeding raw meat to the conservatives.”

Sununu, while serving as New Hampshire governor, appointed Souter to the state’s Supreme Court. However, sources said that Souter probably is closer to the moderate Rudman than he is to the White House chief of staff.

While Administration officials clearly believe that Souter is a wise political choice, they acknowledge that, because of the explosiveness of the abortion issue, he is likely to be subjected to a searching examination by the Senate Judiciary Committee.

“From what I know and hear, the nomination should be reassuring to conservative Republicans and Southern Democrats,” said a senior White House official who asked not to be identified. “But everyone here has a healthy regard for the review process and it remains to be seen how difficult the confirmation hearings will be.”

David Beckwith, Vice President Dan Quayle’s press secretary, described Quayle as exceptionally pleased with the nomination and said that he would be surprised if Democrats who might oppose the choice can “find anything to make an issue” that would cause confirmation problems.

While Bush may have headed off a divisive confirmation fight by selecting a nominee who has no clear record on the major controversies before the Supreme Court--and a man he does not personally know well--history suggests that there may be a longer-term risk.

Other presidents have nominated persons they did not know, only to find that--once on the Supreme Court--the justices demonstrated an independence that did not please their sponsors.

The best examples of that were Justice Brennan and former Chief Justice Earl Warren--both appointed by President Dwight D. Eisenhower. After leaving office, Eisenhower, a conservative Republican, was asked if he had ever made a mistake as President. “Yes, two,” he replied, “and they are both sitting on the Supreme Court.”

Eisenhower reportedly was shocked to learn that Brennan was a liberal and was deeply disappointed that Warren, a former California governor, led the court in ground-breaking decisions on civil rights and other social issues that Republicans generally opposed.

For the immediate future, strategists in both parties said that, while Souter’s selection makes political sense, at best Bush has only forestalled an electoral showdown on the abortion issue. “Without question, this coming right before an election will make abortion more dramatic and more salient in the (November) elections,” said Republican pollster Bill McInturff.

With polls showing that many voters oppose a ban on abortion--and most GOP candidates in key races on record as supporting more restrictions--that could create new headaches for Bush’s party. Democratic pollster Alan Secrest called it “a political wild card in an already turbulent year” and said: “This could be one of several catalysts for a partisan tide.”

A lot may depend on how Souter handles himself at the confirmation hearings and on how the hearings are conducted.

At Monday’s press conference at which Bush announced his selection, Souter refrained from replying to questions about his position on abortion. And Bush made it clear that it’s up to Souter to decide whether he wants to reveal his thinking on the issue when he is questioned by the Senate Judiciary Committee.

“I think the President has finessed the abortion issue,” said a White House aide who declined to be identified. “There’s no record of how Souter stands on the issue and he doesn’t have to answer that question at the confirmation hearings.”

At her confirmation hearings, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, who has been the court’s swing vote on the issue, avoided directly answering questions on grounds that it would be inappropriate to say how she would vote on matters pending before the court.

On the other hand, Appeals Judge Robert H. Bork answered questions in detail about abortion and other issues at his confirmation hearings after President Ronald Reagan nominated him to the Supreme Court. And his answers were his undoing. They resulted in a firestorm of protest and Senate rejection of his nomination.

If Souter can avoid a direct statement of his views on abortion, that could not only smooth the path to confirmation but also moderate the impact of the nomination on this year’s election. “He is under no obligation to answer a hypothetical question (about abortion),” insisted one senior Republican strategist. “He needs to be very strong on that.”

Activists on both sides of the abortion issue reacted guardedly to Souter’s selection, emphasizing that they know little about his background or his thinking on the issue. At the same time, anti-abortion supporters raised no serious questions about the choice while abortion-rights activists made it clear that they will bring pressure on the Senate to draw him out on the issue.

“It would be a terrible injustice to confirm any nominee without knowing his commitment to protecting fundamental civil rights, including the right to choose,” declared Kate Michelman, executive director of the National Abortion Rights Action League. “I think Judge Souter must convince America’s pro-choice majority that he will respect precedent and Americans’ fundamental rights. The public will not accept and the Senate should not confirm a nominee who does not openly recognize constitutional protection of the individual’s right to privacy.”

The Right to Life Committee, the nation’s major anti-abortion organization, said that it was “pleased that President Bush says he is nominating a justice who will interpret the Constitution according to its text, and who will not legislate from the bench. Since Roe vs. Wade has no basis in the Constitution, the appointments of such justices should continue the erosion of the tragic error of Roe vs. Wade.”

Times political writers Robert Shogan in Washington and Ronald Brownstein in Los Angeles contributed to this story.

SENATORS REACT: Reaction was generally favorable to the nomination. A14

BUSH TEXT: A15