Opposition to Roberts slow to muster

WASHINGTON -- Appellate judge John G. Roberts Jr.'s nomination to the Supreme Court has caused an early splintering among liberal groups who were geared up for an epic battle against President Bush's nominee, providing momentum to Republican-led efforts to have Roberts quickly confirmed in the Senate.

Among prominent liberal groups, only abortion rights advocates and far-left groups such as MoveOn.org are now opposed to Roberts outright. Others -- including some of the most influential environmental, civil rights, and consumer advocacy groups -- are critical of him but say they will reserve judgment for now.

While powerful interest groups on the political left may ultimately coalesce to oppose him, early indications suggest that Democrats who seek to defeat Roberts cannot depend on the liberal lobbying and financial juggernaut that helped deny conservative Robert Bork a seat on the high court in 1987.

''As a general matter, he's moving not so much toward a confirmation as to what appears to be a coronation," said Wade Henderson, executive director of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, who added that his group has significant concerns about Roberts but is so far staying neutral.

''While John Roberts is certainly a core conservative -- at least if one can assess the known record -- he doesn't have the sharp edges, it seems to me, that automatically inflames and generates opposition," Henderson said. ''Right now we're not opposing him."

With Republican-allied groups united and stepping up their campaign to see Roberts confirmed by the Oct. 3 start of the next court session, fractures among organizations that have traditionally been allied with Democrats could ease the way for the GOP-controlled Senate to confirm Roberts.

The pro-Bush administration Progress for America is on the air with a one-week, $1 million television campaign aimed at getting a quick vote on Roberts, and GOP leaders in the Senate want confirmation hearings to start as soon as next month. Meanwhile, groups on the opposite side of the political spectrum are calculating whether to spend the millions they have collected to oppose a nominee, or to save their financial ammunition for a future Bush Supreme Court appointment.

Abortion rights groups have not reserved judgment on Roberts, who they fear as a justice would vote to overturn the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that established a constitutional right to abortion. But NARAL Pro-Choice America is so far limiting its campaign to Internet advertisements and has not decided whether to air more expensive television and radio ads.

David Seldin, NARAL's communications director, said he is not concerned that other groups have not joined them in opposing Roberts, noting that many other organizations have raised issues that they want the Senate Judiciary Committee to examine.

''I think there's a broad range of groups that are raising very serious concerns about Judge Roberts's record and political philosophy, and are working to engage the American people in the discussion," Seldin said.

Unlike most of the other men and women rumored to have been under Bush's consideration, Roberts spent less than two years as a judge, leaving a short paper trail upon which to base a conclusion regarding his judicial philosophy.

Philip Clapp, president of the National Environmental Trust, said his group was ready to immediately fight hard against Judge J. Michael Luttig, one of the circuit court judges who was often mentioned as a possible Bush choice. Environmentalists oppose rulings Luttig has issued that sought to limit government's role in protecting the environment.

But with Roberts, who has spent most of his career representing corporations and as a litigator for two Republican administrations, it's impossible to tell at this point how he would rule on issues that affect the environment, Clapp said. Though environmentalists haven't opposed him yet, some wonder whether Bush has set a trap by nominating an ultra-conservative judge with a sparse record, he said.

''Judge Roberts is an enigma on many of these issues," Clapp said. ''The strategy of the administration was to nominate someone with no record. That makes it difficult for opposition to get traction early on."

On the issue of civil rights, Henderson called Roberts a ''stealth candidate" whose record raises serious questions about his commitment to preserving the gains minorities have made in the past several decades. But at the same time, Henderson expressed some relief that Bush did not choose someone with a more established -- and outspoken -- record of supporting conservative causes.

''John Roberts's record suggests that he might not have been on James Dobson's short list," Henderson said, referring to the founder and chairman of the prominent conservative group Focus on the Family. ''But he's not Sandra Day O'Connor, so I do think we have to step back and take a look."

Senator Edward M. Kennedy, who would likely be a leader in any Senate effort to defeat Roberts, said there will be plenty of time for groups to build a case against the nominee if necessary. Kennedy has also declined to stake a public position on Roberts -- a stark contrast to the Bork nomination, when he announced his opposition on the Senate floor within an hour of the nomination.

Roberts's fate will ride on hearings in the Senate Judiciary Committee, where Democrats plan to probe his position on abortion as well as his views toward government regulations in the areas of civil rights, the environment, and workers' rights, Kennedy said.

''There's always a honeymoon period for the nominee," said Kennedy, a Massachusetts Democrat and veteran of 19 Supreme Court nomination procedures. ''He's obviously a very appealing individual, and he's got impressive credentials. Having said all that, he's pretty much a blank slate. . . . On our side, people have reserved judgment, as they should."

Senate Democrats have promised to aggressively question Roberts and intend to seek documents relating to his service in the Reagan and George H. W. Bush administrations. They also signal that they may build a campaign against Roberts if he shows any reticence to fully answer questions or divulge his role in promulgating administration policies.

''The American people should know whether John Roberts will protect their constitutional rights if confirmed," said Senator John F. Kerry, Democrat of Massachusetts. ''I hope that both Judge Roberts and the Bush administration will release all documents related to his professional record, including memoranda written during his time in the Justice Department. These documents should be released to the Congress in their entirety."

But Democrats and liberal interest groups may already have lost important ground in any potential battle over Roberts -- a fight in which they'd be outnumbered anyway, since Republicans hold 55 of the 100 Senate seats. While the country has heard about Roberts's glittering resume, seen his photogenic family and watched his choreographed courtesy calls with senators from both parties, his presumed opponents have largely held their fire.

''What silence or a wait-and-see-approach does is signal to those who are in the moderate middle that there's nothing there to get excited about," said Kermit L. Hall, president of the State University of New York at Albany and a legal historian. ''He has gained the upper hand, and now those who have opposed him have to take that grip away from him."

Still, liberal groups will have plenty of time to make their case to the public and senators once they learn more about him, said Nan Aron, president of Alliance for Justice, a liberal group that has played a major role in past judicial nomination fights. She said she thinks it's unlikely that liberal organizations will wind up on the sidelines, given that Roberts has drawn so much support from conservatives.

''We certainly may move in a different direction, but we can't do it based on what we know right now," Aron said. ''I'm not at all surprised the week has been one of photo ops and smiling faces and pretty family photos and courteous senators. The American people have seen the symbols, and now they want the substance, and they're not going to take on faith promises by nominees to be good justices."

Susan Milligan of the Globe staff contributed to this report. Rick Klein can be reached at rklein@globe.com.