New campaign ads to target judges, from the left and the right

WASHINGTON -- An advertising campaign attacking President Bush's judicial nominees has opened a new round of campaign culture wars, as liberal groups condemn Republicans' ''extremist" views and conservatives call for the resignation of ''activist" judges.

Using provocative sound bites from nominees who oppose abortion and gay rights, as well as other liberal causes, a new TV and Internet commercial sponsored by the Coalition for a Fair and Independent Judiciary calls nine of Bush's past or recent nominees threats ''to our fundamental freedoms." Urging senators to block several of the nominations, the ad personally attacks Bush and thrusts social issues into the pre-election spotlight.

''This ad makes clear that American democracy requires fair and independent jurists, not ideologues who ride roughshod over our rights and freedoms," said Nancy Zirkin, deputy director of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, one of 24 organizations sponsoring the ad. During a news conference yesterday, Zirkin said that she could not estimate the cost of the campaign but noted the commercial would probably run on cable networks until September.

While Zirkin argued that the campaign was not pegged to the election, the advertisement, debuting on CNN yesterday, has already tapped the political nerve of Republicans. C. Boyden Gray, chairman of the Committee for Justice and onetime legal counsel to Bush's father, said a counter-campaign is in the works.

Gray, whose organization helps rally support for Bush's nominees, said he would help call for the end of ''activist" judges. ''These judges do resonate with American voters," he said. ''I think the problem is with people who are making things up."

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court's 4-3 decision legalizing gay marriage has rallied conservatives who contend that the judges overstepped their role. In the US Senate last week, Republican leaders said a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage was necessary to keep judges from ''reinterpreting" the Constitution. A bill to move the measure forward failed, 50 to 48.

While the social issues underlying this media war touch hot buttons with voters, it's not clear that advertising campaigns blaming judges will sway them. Joel Rivlin, director of the Wisconsin Advertising Project political advertising group, said it is too early to predict the campaign's impact.

Kay Daly, president of the Coalition for the Fair Judiciary, a conservative judicial lobbying group, is pressuring Senate candidates to endorse nominees based on their judicial records, not personal beliefs.

''Ideological litmus tests from the left or the right are dangerous," she said. ''Judges should apply the law as it is written."

Daly turned the liberals' complaints of the nominees' ideological threat against them, calling her opponents ''bent on ideologically profiling a nominee who they believe will not implement their agenda."

Michael Schwartz, vice president for government relations of Concerned Women of America, said that it is ''healthy for judges to have opinions" and that it is up to senators, not public interest groups, to decide whether they should take the bench.

''If people want to vote against a judicial nominee because of his political views, that is the Senate's prerogative, but to use a filibuster is not about the substance of the merits of the nominee," he said. Democrats have blocked eight of Bush's nominees and have been widely attacked as obstructing the nomination process.

Marge Baker, public policy director for People for the American Way, said the charge of obstructionism is absurd.

''The filibuster is in effect the only remaining choice," she said. ''Lifetime judges who are not committed to protecting rights . . . can do real damage to real people for a real long time."

Jessica E. Vascellaro can be reached at jvascellaro@globe.com