Roberts Dodges, But Keeps His Cool

Supreme Court nominee John Roberts jousted with Democratic senators Tuesday at his confirmation hearing to be chief justice, dodging their attempts to pin down his opinions on abortion, voting rights and other legal issues.

Roberts said he felt the landmark 1973 ruling legalizing abortion was "settled as a precedent" and that the Constitution provides a right to privacy.

But when senators pressed for details on his opinions — even to the point of interrupting his answers — Roberts said repeatedly that he shouldn't address some issues that could come before the Supreme Court with him as chief justice.

CBS News legal analyst Jan Crawford Greenberg of the Chicago Tribune said that Roberts' statement does not mean he supports abortion rights.

"There was a comma after that sentence. He said it was settled law, subject to the legal principle that allows courts to rethink their decisions if there are compelling reasons to do so," Greenburg said. "He did not say he would not overturn Roe, despite question after question from senator after senator, trying to pin him down on those views."

CBS News Correspondent Gloria Borger reports that one of the only views Roberts was willing to offer was that of the clear division between Congress and the courts.

"Millions and millions of people have voted for you and not one has voted for us," Roberts said.

At one point, Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., who has indicated he may run for president in 2008, accused Roberts of "filibustering."

"Go ahead and continue not to answer," said Biden. Later, he interrupted Roberts and when criticized, insisted, "His answers are misleading, with all due respect."

"Wait a minute! Wait a minute! They may be misleading but they are his answers," said Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., the Judiciary Committee chairman.

Roberts — who had noted that Biden earlier would have heard a whole answer if he hadn't interrupted — kept his cool.

"With respect, they are my answers and with respect, they are not misleading," he said.

Senators questioned President Bush's choice to succeed the late William H. Rehnquist on abortion, privacy, voting rights and the balance of power between the branches of government. Roberts frequently answered through the prism of legal precedent but declined to address specifics.

The heart of the abortion ruling is "settled as a precedent of the court, entitled to respect under principles of stare decisis," the concept that long-established rulings should be given extra weight, Roberts said.

Still, review and revisions have been the hallmark of the high court on issues from integration to gay rights, and Roberts indicated that groundbreaking cases can draw a second look.

"If particular precedents have proven to be unworkable, they don't lead to predictable results, they're difficult to apply, that's one factor supporting reconsideration," Roberts said.

If confirmed, the 50-year-old Roberts would be the youngest chief justice in 200 years, with the power to shape the high court for decades. Democrats and Republicans see no major obstacles to his winning Senate approval and joining the other justices when the new term begins Oct. 3.

Greenberg said that in Tuesday's hearings, Roberts did not waver.

"He's a man who is prepared," Greenberg said. "We saw his humor, we didn't really see him go off his points that he's made before."

Mr. Bush originally nominated Roberts to succeed Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, the court's crucial swing vote who announced her plans to retire in July. Within days of Rehnquist's death on Sept. 3, Mr. Bush tapped Roberts to be chief justice.

Democrats pressed the appellate judge about his writings on civil rights while a young lawyer in the Reagan administration two decades ago. Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., described some of those writings on voting rights as a "narrow, cramped and mean-spirited view" that failed to show a full appreciation of discrimination.

Borger reports that the inquiry concerned a memo written by Roberts 23 years ago when he served in the Reagan administration. In it, he argued for tightening the reach of the voting rights act.

"It was the position of the Reagan administration for whom I worked," he said.