Roberts nomination heading to full Senate after panel's OK

WASHINGTON -- Judge John G. Roberts Jr. yesterday easily passed the first step to his confirmation as chief justice of the United States, with the Senate Judiciary Committee voting 13 to 5 to endorse his nomination and send his name to the full Senate.

Three of the committee's eight Democrats joined all 10 Republicans in supporting Roberts's nomination, reflecting deep divisions within the Democratic Party about how to handle President Bush's choice to succeed the late Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist. The vote was a stronger statement in Roberts's favor than many observers expected, especially since Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid announced his opposition to Roberts on Tuesday.

But Senator Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont, the Judiciary Committee's ranking Democrat, gave Roberts his support a day later, praising the nominee's intellect and predicting that he will be a distinguished leader of the Supreme Court. As many as half of the Senate's 44 Democrats could join him in voting to confirm Roberts next week, according to Senate aides.

''I take him at his word that he does not have an ideological agenda," Leahy said. ''Only later will we know if Judge Roberts proves to be the kind of chief justice he says he will be, if he truly will be his own man. . . . I trust that John Roberts will be, and that's why I'll vote yes."

The mixed message that the Democrats are delivering on Roberts takes on added significance because Bush has another vacancy on the high court with the retirement of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Arlen Specter, Republican of Pennsylvania, said he expects the president to make his nomination immediately after Roberts is confirmed by the full Senate, a vote that could come by the end of next week.

Other Democrats have deep reservations about Roberts's commitment to equal rights, and hinted that fiercer battles lay ahead over future nominees from the right. Several Senate opponents referred to memos Roberts wrote as a young lawyer in the Reagan administration, in which he recommended tight interpretations of laws intended to protect women's rights, voting access, and to ensure equal treatment of minorities and people with disabilities.

''For all the hoopla and razzle-dazzle in four days of hearings, there is precious little in the record to suggest that a Chief Justice John Roberts would espouse anything less than the narrow and cramped view that staff attorney John Roberts so strongly advocated in the 1980s," said Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts.

Senator Dianne Feinstein, a California Democrat and the only woman on the committee, said she was frustrated that Roberts ducked tough questions on his views on abortion rights and a range of other hot-button social issues. She said he gave qualified answers that were legalistic and ''detached," leaving senators little understanding of his judicial philosophy.

''I asked for some ability to find a commitment to broad legal principles that form the basis of our fundamental rights," Feinstein said. ''I came to believe that 'I have no quarrel with it' is a term of art of equivocation, quite frankly."

Besides Kennedy and Feinstein, the other Democratic committee members who voted against Roberts were Senators Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware, Charles E. Schumer of New York, and Richard J. Durbin of Illinois. The other Democrats who voted to confirm were Senators Russell D. Feingold and Herbert H. Kohl, both of Wisconsin.

With Republican control of the Senate all but assuring Roberts of confirmation from the start, some Democrats argued that a united front against him would signal to the president the importance of choosing a moderate to replace O'Connor. But others said they should consider the merits of a nominee who has been received mostly favorably; by avoiding a knee-jerk reaction against Roberts, the argument contends, solid opposition to a future candidate will carry more weight.

As yesterday's vote made clear, the Democrats' split even extended to the members of the Judiciary Committee, who on the whole are thought to be more liberal than the rest of the Senate's Democratic caucus. Feingold, a potential 2008 presidential candidate, cited a litany of concerns about Roberts's commitment to civil liberties, but said the 50-year-old federal appeals judge is clearly a ''great legal mind" and any president is entitled to deference when it comes to court nominations.

''When my party retakes the White House, there may very well be a Democratic John Roberts nominated to the court," Feingold said. ''When that day comes -- and it will -- that will be the test for this committee and the Senate."

But Biden, another presidential hopeful, said Roberts's lack of candor is enough to disqualify him. ''He will have more impact on our lives and the future of our children's lives than any of us and all of us combined," Biden said. ''That fact alone justifies the desire of the American people to know more about what he thinks."

Republicans on the committee scolded the Democrats who voted no. They noted that the committee gave Justice Antonin Scalia, arguably the high court's most conservative member, unanimous approval in 1986, and that liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg received just three no votes in 1993.

Democrats are applying a new standard with Roberts, where political ideology trumps judicial qualifications, said Senator Lindsey O. Graham, Republican of South Carolina and a committee member.

''There is a fundamental shift in this nomination," Graham said. ''Politics is rearing its head like it has not done before."

In addition to Reid and Barack Obama of Illinois, who said he would vote against Roberts, a number of other Senate Democrats declared how they will vote when Roberts' nomination reaches the floor.

Senator Hillary Clinton of New York, widely expected to run for president in 2008, and John F. Kerry of Massachusetts, the party's presidential nominee last year, say they will vote no, and several other prominent liberal members have done likewise.

But several Democrats from states Bush won last year say they will vote for Roberts, including senators Max Baucus of Montana, Mark Pryor of Arkansas, and Tim Johnson of South Dakota.

With Roberts's nomination on cruise control, attention has intensified on Bush's next pick.

Liberal groups say that, although they're disappointed that a substantial number of Democrats are supporting Roberts, they think they can persuade senators to use a different standard when considering Bush's replacement for O'Connor. Their logic: O'Connor has been a frequent swing vote and a supporter of abortion rights, while Rehnquist was a reliable conservative.

''The important one for us is Justice O'Connor's seat," said Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, a group that has opposed the Roberts nomination. ''The next one is monumental. It will raise the level of scrutiny, especially around the issue of privacy and personal freedoms."

Specter said it is wise to consider whether the court should take a ''sharp turn" in ideology. ''If you have a sharp turn in the court, you undercut reliance [on laws] and expectations, and as Roberts would say, 'stability,' " said Specter, who supports abortion rights.

Roberts's top-notch legal mind, sterling credentials, and experience have set the bar high for Bush's next nominee, Specter said.

''The message from this vote is that people are impressed with John Roberts," he said. ''Perhaps the message to the president is a challenge to the president to put up someone as good as John Roberts."

Rick Klein can be reached at rklein@globe.com.