Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: MONDAY, July 30, 1990 TAG: 9007300237
SECTION: NATIONAL/INTERNATIONAL PAGE: A/8 EDITION: EVENING
SOURCE: STEVEN KOMAROW ASSOCIATED PRESS
DATELINE: WASHINGTON LENGTH: Medium
And maybe, if Souter gets in trouble, just three of those 14.
The early line is that Souter is a shoo-in. He's got no fingerprints, as people say. He hasn't taken sides on the tough issues.
And the presumption always is to favor the president's nominee unless his or her opponents convict the candidate of being politically or morally unsuitable.
Two of President Reagan's nominees, Robert Bork and Douglas Ginsburg, failed for those reasons, in that order. The rejection of Bork, who refused to withdraw even when his fate was sealed, was a nasty partisan affair that senators don't want to repeat.
Unless . . .
The two most likely committee members to come out against Souter would be Sens. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., and Howard Metzenbaum, D-Ohio.
Kennedy and Metzenbaum are the most liberal members of the committee and, perhaps, the Senate as a whole. With no women on the panel and no blacks in the Senate, Kennedy and Metzenbaum are the ones women's groups and civil rights groups will count on to represent their viewpoints and ask critical questions when the hearings begin Sept. 13.
In his years as a prosecutor and judge, Souter hasn't had to confront issues such as abortion and government programs to help minorities, although he once made a speech critical of affirmative action. Conservatives seem confident he'll stand with them once on the Supreme Court, although some anti-abortion people are wary.
Sen. Charles Grassley, a strongly anti-abortion member of the committee, says he'll be putting the abortion question to Souter. The liberals will too.
How far Souter will go in answering the questions is another matter, given his refusal to answer any substantive questions during the first days after his nomination. As a sitting federal judge, he can respond that almost any specific question is inappropriate to answer.
"I would be willing to predict that the public is not going to know" how he's going to vote on the court, said Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., a committee member whom Souter visited last week.
If Leahy's wrong, and opponents - probably liberal - find an Achilles heel on the nominee, Kennedy and Metzenbaum would seek support first from the Democratic moderates on the panel. Those include Leahy, committee Chairman Joseph Biden, D-Del., and Sens. Paul Simon, D-Ill., and Herb Kohl, D-Wis.
That would give them six votes, two short of what would be needed to get the committee to oppose the nomination.
Five of the six Republicans on the committee would be extremely unlikely to go against the Republican president's nominee. He can count on support from Sens. Strom Thurmond, R-S.C.; Orrin Hatch, R-Utah; Alan Simpson, R-Wyo.; Gordon Humphrey, R-N.H., and Grassley.
That leaves two Democrats and one Republican as the swing votes.
Sen. Howell Heflin, D-Ala., helped doom the Bork nomination three years ago when the senior Southerner opposed President Reagan's nominee. Although conservative, for Heflin and other Southern Democrats it is important to oppose someone determined to turn back the clock on civil rights issues important to black voters.
Sen. Dennis DeConcini, D-Ariz., also is from the more conservative wing of the Democratic party. He, too, opposed Bork as ideologically unacceptable to the nation.
The only committee Republican who might oppose a nominee would be Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania. Although he never appears eager to go against the president, he carefully keeps his options open.
"He made a very good impression on me," Specter said after he met Souter last week. "But I'm not inclined one way or the other. I'm erect."
Thurmond has made a great show of presenting Souter with gifts, like a gavel and miniature Constitution, that he can use once on the court. And liberals also don't yet see why he wouldn't be confirmed.
But it's still early.
by CNB