Roberts vote holds risks for Democrats

WASHINGTON -- The decision on whether to support Judge John G. Roberts Jr.'s nomination to the Supreme Court could be a defining moment for the Democratic Party, as strategists have begun weighing the political risks either of alienating the party's liberal base by supporting a conservative nominee, or of leaving the party open to attack for opposing a nominee solely on ideological grounds.

As Democratic senators began weighing their decisions this weekend, many party strategists looking to the potential fallout for the 2006 midterm elections and the 2008 presidential election are counseling lawmakers to cast a ''no" vote.

''If you're running for president and you vote for this guy, you're going to come to regret it," said Paul Begala, the party strategist and commentator. ''Decisions will come down from the court that will outrage very important Democratic voters," such as minorities and workers with moderate incomes.

Republicans, meanwhile, are poised to go on the attack against senators opposed to Roberts's confirmation in upcoming election campaigns. The idea would be to portray those senators as beholden to well-funded leftist interest groups that vocally opposed the judge.

Already, they are making the case that Democrats who vote ''no" on the nominee are acting on politics, not qualifications; they are pointing to 1993, when Republican senators overwhelmingly supported Ruth Bader Ginsburg for Supreme Court justice despite her liberal views on a variety of issues.

In the short term, Democratic senators also are considering how to send the right message to the White House about President Bush's nominee to fill the second vacancy on the Supreme Court.

''If Bush gets more than 60 votes he'll feel emboldened to nominate a movement conservative," said Doug Schoen, a pollster for President Clinton. The Senate has 55 Republicans and 45 Democrats.

Over the weekend, strategists said, many senators would be taking the pulse of constituents and local officials after the four days of confirmation hearings, which concluded Thursday.

The eight Democrats on the Judiciary Committee will consult with one another privately in the coming days, and the party strategy will be debated at the Senate Democrats' weekly caucus luncheon Tuesday. The committee is scheduled to vote on Roberts's nomination on Thursday, and the full Senate is expected to vote at the end of the month.

A number of leading Democratic strategists, including some centrists, have insisted that a unified ''no" vote would not hurt the Democratic Party -- or individual candidates -- but a ''yes" vote could if Roberts turns out to be a very conservative justice.

The political fallout would not be known for years, said Elaine Kamarck, a former top Clinton adviser who now teaches at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government. Still, she said, a ''yes" vote is a risk if the Roberts court does ''something dramatic, like overturn Roe v. Wade," the landmark 1973 decision that made abortion legal.

Schoen, the pollster, said he had originally thought Democrats should, and would, support Roberts. But after the confirmation hearings, he changed his mind; he now believes Democrats can make the case that they are opposing him because he was not willing to disclose much about his legal views.

''At the beginning," Schoen said, ''I thought Roberts would win near- unanimous support, except for the most liberal groups. But I don't think he has acquitted himself all that well, so I don't see an enormous risk in opposing him."

However, strategists from both parties agreed that Democrats from swing states with large numbers of Republican voters face more pressure to support Roberts.

''If you vote against him in a swing state, you look unreasonable," Begala said.

Many Democratic senators have offered praise for Roberts, and a number of such lawmakers, including several who represent states that Bush carried last year, are expected to vote for Roberts. That list includes Senator Kent Conrad of North Dakota, Ben Nelson of Nebraska, Ken Salazar of Colorado, and Mark Pryor of Arkansas.

And Senator Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut, known for his centrist positions, had kind words for Roberts during an interview last week with the radio host Don Imus. ''He's not sent us an extremist," Lieberman said of President Bush, noting that Roberts ''has been mildly reassuring."

Still, Democrats seem to realize that a sweeping confirmation vote on Roberts sends a different message than a tighter vote. Liberal groups are pressing for as much opposition as possible, which they say would serve notice that the president would face fierce opposition if he tried to pick a more conservative nominee. But some expressed fear that such a strategy could backfire and make Democrats look out of touch with the people.

''We know it's going to be a symbolic 'no' vote," an aide to a Democratic senator said. ''The question is what message we're going to send, and of course how we're going to send it."

Bush has said he will name a replacement for Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who has announced her retirement, soon after Roberts is confirmed.

''It's obviously something that everyone has to be aware of," said Jim Manley, a spokesman for the Senate minority leader Harry Reid, Democrat of Nevada. ''Each and every one of the members, it's got to be part of their decision-making process."

At a private meeting Thursday with Reid, several prominent liberal groups sought to convince the Senate's top Democrat that he should lead an opposition campaign against Roberts. Failure to do so would signal to Bush that there is not a price to pay for sending a more conservative choice next time, said Nan Aron, head of the liberal group Alliance for Justice.

The first formal chance for Democrats to make a statement is on Thursday, when the Judiciary Committee votes on Roberts's nomination. Some of the committee's eight Democrats, including Senator Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts, have strongly hinted they will vote no. But even some liberal stalwarts such as senators Charles E. Schumer of New York and Dianne Feinstein of California have said they have deep conflicts.

Several Democratic senators said they will be looking for cues from the committee, and particularly its ranking Democrat, Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont. Speaking on CBS's ''Face the Nation," Leahy said he is writing two speeches -- ''one for and one against" Roberts.

A party-line vote could serve as a warning to Bush not to choose someone who is more conservative than Roberts.

''The committee vote always sends a message," said Nelson, the Nebraska Democrat who is among a bipartisan group of 14 senators who averted a confrontation over filibusters of judges this year

But some Democrats are warning against using votes to send messages. Senator Herb Kohl, a Wisconsin Democrat who is on the Judiciary Committee, said the Senate has to consider each nomination separately, just as Bush makes individual choices for the court.