Reid to oppose Roberts’ confirmation

Tuesday, Sept. 20, 2005 | 11:14 a.m.

SUN STAFF AND WIRE REPORTS

WASHINGTON -- Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid said today he is opposing the confirmation of John Roberts as chief justice of the Supreme Court.

In a prepared statement to be given today on the Senate floor Reid called Roberts, the president's nominee to succeed the late William H. Rehnquist, "an excellent lawyer, an affable person." But Reid said he had concerns about Roberts' positions on women's rights and civil rights, and said he was concerned that Roberts may have had a role in the Reagan administration's work to roll back civil rights.

"At the end of this process, I had too many unanswered questions about the nominee to justify a vote confirming him to this enormously important lifetime appointment," Reid said.

Roberts, though, has strong Republican support and appears headed for easy confirmation.

As party leader, Reid had urged fellow Democrats not to announce their positions until the conclusion of last week's confirmation hearings for Roberts.

By stating his own position first, Reid likely would set the stage for strong Democratic opposition to the 50-year-old appeals court judge and former Reagan administration lawyer.

Senate Democrats met privately during the day to discuss the nomination, which has drawn strong opposition from critics who argue that Roberts might vote to overturn a 1973 ruling that established the constitutional right to an abortion. Civil rights organizations also oppose Roberts' confirmation, citing some of the positions he took as a lawyer with the Reagan administration and his refusal to disavow them at confirmation hearings.

The Senate Judiciary Committee is scheduled to vote on the nomination on Thursday. The panel includes 10 Republicans and eight Democrats -- two of whom are members of the party's leadership. The outcome of that vote is expected to serve as a preview of the level of bipartisan support Roberts can command in the Senate.

The AFL-CIO, the nation's largest labor federation, and the Service Employees International Union, which has 1.8 million union members, both announced their opposition to Roberts during the day as critics mounted a last-minute effort to discourage Democrats from voting for him.

"The record available to us at this time does not allow us to say with any degree of confidence that Judge Roberts has an understanding of, or commitment to, protecting the hard-fought rights and protections of working families, including their right to equal opportunity," said AFL-CIO President John Sweeney.

The Congressional Black Caucus, which is made up of the House's African American lawmakers and Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., also announced its opposition.

"Judge Roberts' civil rights record and views remained the most controversial and unexplained part of his record when the Judiciary Committee hearing concluded, just as his civil rights record and views had been the most controversial part of his record when the hearing began," said Rep. Mel Watt, D-N.C., the CBC's leader.

Apart from pressure from traditional allies, several Democrats have noted that Roberts possesses undeniable legal skills.

Additionally, with Bush beginning to consult with Congress on a replacement for Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, there are other factors.

One Democrat who is close to the Judiciary Committee said the issue broke down this way: If the nominee to replace O'Connor is going to be more conservative than Roberts, and more controversial, would it be better to have seven or eight Democratic votes in favor of Roberts or to have 30 or 35?

A second Democrat said part of the calculation reflected the view of some senators that Bush may shrink from confrontation when he fills the second vacancy, at a time when public support for the war in Iraq is dwindling and his overall public approval is at the lowest point of his presidency.

Yet a third said some Democratic senators argue that they will be in a better political position to oppose a second, more conservative nominee if they have voted for Roberts.

These Democrats spoke on condition of anonymity, saying they were not authorized to discuss the private debate.

One Democratic strategist with long experience in senatorial campaigns dismissed such claims.

"Never once have Democrats benefited from attempts at reasonableness and compromise and accommodation," said Jim Jordan, former executive director of the party's senatorial committee. "To the contrary, Bush and his team seem to view political compromise as weakness, and they punish it rather than reward or reciprocate it."

While groups such as the NLWC, the Alliance for Justice, People for the American Way and the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights have been vocal in opposing Roberts, other traditionally Democratic groups have not.

After weeks of refraining from taking a position, the AFL-CIO and two large unions, the Service Employees International Union and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Union, are expected to announce their opposition on Tuesday. The nation's trial lawyers, another group that favors Democrats, do not routinely become involved in judicial nominations.

Additionally, Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., who is in charge of the party's senatorial campaign committee, told reporters last week he does not believe the nomination will emerge as one of the top four or five issues in the 2006 midterm elections. Schumer is also a member of the Judiciary Committee.