Roberts’ Values, Character Come In for Questions

On Wednesday, the questions grew more personal.

Judge John G. Roberts Jr., President Bush’s nominee for chief justice of the United States, kept his composure under 10 more hours of questioning by the Senate Judiciary Committee. But he began to exhibit the first small signs that the marathon interrogation was taking a toll on him.

Physically, he showed little weariness, other than a bit of puffiness around his eyes. But emotionally, though he never raised his voice, Roberts displayed flashes of exasperation with increasingly combative questions and strident speeches -- especially from Democrats.

And as the day wore on, the Democrats trained their questions ever more directly on Roberts’ character and values.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), pressing him on right-to-die issues, asked him to put himself in the shoes of a family member watching a loved one approach death.

“If you were in that situation with someone you deeply loved and you saw the suffering, who would you want to listen to, your doctor or the government telling you what to do?” she asked.

Roberts began to reply that it was important to “appreciate the views of the loved one,” but after a few repetitions of that line, Feinstein cut him off.

“That wasn’t my question,” she said. “I’m trying to see your feelings as a man. I’m not asking you for a legal view.”

“You know, I do think it’s one of those things that it’s hard to conceptualize until you’re there,” Roberts ultimately said.

Feinstein also reprised a theme increasingly voiced by Democrats on the committee -- whether Roberts’ life had been too privileged to appreciate the plight of the disadvantaged.

“I think that’s a danger for jurists,” Feinstein said. “And probably no place is it a greater danger than on the United States Supreme Court.”

Roberts said that he understood the risk, and that raising two young children and attending their swim meets and soccer games would be “a very healthy part of an effort to keep in touch with things outside the isolated marble palaces.”

“But I would hypothesize,” Feinstein said, “that if it’s just through your children, it’s still going to be a very limited segment of society.”

Throughout the day, Democrats expressed frustration -- as well as a certain grudging admiration -- for what they called Roberts’ skill in responding to questions at length without actually answering.

Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), who on Tuesday had described himself as “pleasantly surprised” by Roberts’ answers, said Wednesday that the persistent non-answers he was hearing were altering his earlier view.

“It’s as if I asked you what kind of movies you like ... and you say, ‘I like movies with good acting, I like movies with good directing, I like movies with good cinematography,’ ” Schumer said.

“And I ask you, ‘No, give me an example of a good movie’ [and] you don’t name one. I say, ‘Give me an example of a bad movie’; you won’t name one.

“Then I ask you if you like ‘Casablanca,’ and you respond by saying, ‘Lots of people like “Casablanca.” ’ You tell me it’s widely settled that ‘Casablanca’ is one of the great movies.”

As the audience laughed, Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), the committee chairman, told Schumer that his time was up and called a recess.

But Roberts wasn’t done. As the senators and the audience were standing to leave, he raised his voice to say he’d like a chance to respond.

“First,” Roberts said, “ ‘Doctor Zhivago’ and ‘North by Northwest.’ ”

For their part, committee Republicans posed questions that effectively gave the nominee a chance for rebuttal.

“Were you proud to work for Ronald Reagan?” asked Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) after Roberts was grilled by Democrats about memos, written when he was a junior lawyer in the Reagan White House, that they said suggested a lack of compassion for the poor or disadvantaged.

“Very much, senator. Yes,” Roberts replied.

“During your time of working with Ronald Reagan, were you ever asked to take a legal position that you thought was unethical or not solid?” Graham asked.

“No, senator. I was not,” Roberts answered.

By late afternoon, Democrats made clear they were not done, and Specter agreed to permit a third round of questions, which is expected today.

Schumer tried for a third time to get Roberts to reveal something more about his convictions by referring to Roberts’ legal mentor, former Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist.

“Rehnquist, in his hearings to become chief justice 19 years ago, was asked where he sat on the ideological spectrum of the court. Justice Rehnquist replied, ‘On the conservative side,’ ” Schumer said. “So let me ask you the parallel question about the D.C. Circuit, upon which you sit now. Where, judge, do you place yourself on the ideological spectrum of the D.C. Circuit?”

“I don’t know where I fall,” Roberts replied, noting he had agreed with different judges at different times.

“So you’re saying you’re somewhere in the middle?” Schumer pressed.

“I’m saying that judges don’t think of themselves along an ideological spectrum,” Roberts replied.

“Judge Rehnquist did,” Schumer said.

“Well, I don’t,” Roberts replied.

Even the committee’s top Democrat, Sen. Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont, who has taken pains to be less partisan than other committee members from his party, expressed frustration.

“Life would be a lot easier if he’d be more forthcoming,” Leahy said.