WASHINGTON — President Bush's nominee for the position of chief justice of the United States was cautious and reserved in his answers to the Senate Judiciary Committee this month.

But Judge John Roberts revealed his storied intellect and legal mind as he discussed cases and legal theories.

As 2 1/2 days of questioning wrapped up Sept. 15, the assessment of most in Washington, D.C., was that Roberts was a shoo-in for confirmation.

On the first day of the hearings, Sept. 12, Roberts sat by as all 18 senators on the committee and three others gave opening statements for the hearings. Democrats mostly upbraided Roberts, warning him to be candid and answer all questions.

A few senators — notably John Cornyn, R-Texas, and Sam Brownback, R-Kan. — went on the offensive, stating the need to reform a judiciary that has handed down very political decisions in recent years on abortion, sodomy and child pornography. But most Republicans simply urged Roberts not to answer questions about specific cases, thus shielding him from Democrats' attempts to extract specific answers.

“Some have said that nominees who do not spill their guts about whatever a senator wants to know are hiding something from the American people,” said Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah.

“That notion misleads the American people about what judges do. … Nominees may not be able to answer questions that seek hints, forecasts, or previews about how they would rule on particular issues.”

Roberts appeared to follow these warnings on the succeeding days as he avoided giving his own views on specific cases — and where he did, he was as vague as possible.

When asked about the controversial Roe v. Wade abortion decision, he remarked that the case is “a precedent of the Court entitled to respect under principles of stare decisis” — the Latin term referring to the notion that prior Supreme Court rulings should be given extra weight. Still, Roberts did not commit to upholding or to reversing Roe.

Most senators used their questioning time to give speeches more than to ask questions. Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Del., a colorful character and a possible presidential candidate for 2008, put on a show for spectators in his opening statement as he discussed Roberts' love of baseball and condemned his political opponents for “judicial activism.”

“Those elected officials on the far right, such as [House Majority Leader Tom] DeLay [R-Texas] and others — all of them good patriotic Americans — have been unsuccessful at implementing their radical agenda in the elected branches,” said Biden. “So they pour their energy and resources into trying to change the Court's view of the Constitution.”

Religion's Role

Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., shrugged off Biden's comments, disputing the notion that Republicans have been making political advances through the judiciary.

“I noted that he did that without blushing,” Sessions told the Register, pointing to recent elections that favored Republicans and recent Supreme Court decisions that have promoted sodomy, unrestricted abortion, and the removal of religious references from the public square. “His implication is that church people and conservatives, through the Court, are imposing their social political and religious views that could not pass at the ballot box. Really, though, it's the liberal agenda that has been pushed on the court by a host of very liberal interest groups.”

Among the highlights of Roberts's confirmation hearings was Sen. Dianne Feinstein's questioning of Roberts, in which the California Democrat brought up his Catholic faith as an issue.

“In 1960, there was much debate about President John F. Kennedy's faith and what role Catholicism would play in his administration,” said Feinstein. “At that time, he pledged to address the issues of conscience out of a focus on the national interests, not out of adherence to the dictates of one's religion. He even said, ‘I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute.’ My question is, do you?”

Roberts answered Feinstein's question by disputing the notion of an “absolute” separation, noting the Supreme Court's recent decision to allow a Ten Commandments monument on the grounds of a Texas state building.

Joe Cella, president of the Catholic political organization Fidelis, objected to Feinstein's line of questioning.

“It's unfortunate and sad that Sen. Feinstein and others are trying to turn back the clock to days when Catholics faced brutal attacks that inspired the ‘religious test clause’ in the Constitution,” said Cella.

Cella downplayed one comment by Roberts that concerned some Catholics, in which he told Feinstein, “My faith and my religious beliefs do not play a role in judging. I look to the law. I do not look to the Bible or any other religious source.”

“I think that Judge Roberts answered appropriately on how our legal system works,” said Cella. “With a judge of any faith, you would hope they wouldn't use the tenets of the faith they hold to be the basis of the facts they judge. You would want the Constitution to be the basis of their judgment.

Another important event intervened as the hearings were being conducted. In what could be considered round two of a five-year-old legal battle, U.S. District Judge Lawrence Karlton in San Francisco ruled it unconstitutional for children to recite the Pledge of Allegiance at public schools because the pledge contains the words, “under God.”

The Supreme Court ducked this issue last year on technical grounds. Because the issue is likely to reach the high court once more, last week's ruling will probably have an impact on upcoming judicial confirmations, Cella said.

“I think it probably has zero effect on [Roberts'] nomination and his ability to be confirmed,” said Cella of the new ruling on the pledge. “But the effect it can have is for the political dynamics surrounding the next nominee. Those that are attacking Judge Roberts will attack this next nominee even more; they will appear to be far out of the mainstream, because their liberal agenda advocates for such decisions.”

With Roberts's confirmation imminent — the final vote on the Senate floor will likely take place before the Supreme Court begins its new term Oct. 3 — President Bush will probably act quickly in nominating a replacement for Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. This second round of hearings will be far more contentious, as Democrats will be loath to replace O'Connor with a justice more opposed to their aims. Roberts was originally intended to replace O'Connor before the recent death of Chief Justice William Rehnquist.

Bush is reportedly eyeing two women for O'Connor's post — Fifth Circuit Judge Priscilla Owen, whose nomination was held up for years by Senate Democrats, and Michigan Supreme Court Justice Maura Corrigan. Both women are more comparable to Scalia and Thomas than any of the other justices.

David Freddoso writes from Washington, D.C.