Roberts pledges to be chief justice who respects the law, not an ideologue

Roberts tried to reassure Democrats that he would use the "rule of law," not his personal beliefs, to judge cases that come before the high court.

"I think if you've looked at what I've done since I took the judicial oath, that should convince you that I'm not an ideologue," Roberts said after an impassioned plea by Democratic Sens. Dianne Feinstein of California and Charles Schumer of New York for him to explain what kind of chief justice he would be. As for ideologues, he said, "you and I agree that that's not the sort of person we want on the Supreme Court."

Roberts, who was a government and private lawyer before being appointed a federal appeals court judge in Washington, said, "I would hope you would look at my briefs and my arguments before the Supreme Court and conclude that that's a person who respects the law, respects the court before whom he is arguing and will approach the law in a similar way as a judge."

Roberts cleared one of his last hurdles when committee chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa., and top Democrat Patrick Leahy of Vermont announced that an FBI background check had found nothing that would disqualify. The American Bar Association also confirmed its "well-qualified" rating.

Republicans were confident that Roberts would win the committee's majority approval next week and then Senate confirmation, with the backing of some moderate Democrats, before the Supreme Court term begins Oct. 3.

Committee Democrats have yet to commit to vote for Roberts, but they know they cannot stop him and President Bush will soon follow with yet another nomination to the court.

"It's going to take some time of real careful thinking about what to do" on the vote, Schumer said after the hearing.

Bush selected Roberts to succeed the late Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist as chief justice. The conservative judge could, at age 50, shape the high court for at least a generation.

The vote to confirm him "isn't just rolling the dice it's betting the whole house," Schumer said.

"I don't know what I'm going to do," said Feinstein, who said his testimony showed "this very cautious, very precise man, young, obviously with staying power. ... I'm convinced you will be there, God willing, for 40 years. And that even concerns me more because it means that my vote means more."

Feinstein voted to confirm Roberts for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit; Schumer voted against him.

Frustrated Democrats tried to elicit a sense of John Roberts the man rather than the judge who was a political appointee in the Reagan and first Bush administrations and a multimillion-dollar lawyer in private practice

Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill., wondered whether Roberts would treat society's less fortunate the same way he would deal with the wealthy who often have better lawyers, better legal briefs and an advantage in the court system.

"If the Constitution says that the little guy should win, then the little guy's going to win in the court before me," Roberts said. "But if the Constitution says that the big guy should win, well then the big guy's going to win because my obligation is to the Constitution."

That didn't convince Rep. John Lewis, D-Ga., who participated in the civil rights struggles that helped secure passage of the Voting Rights Act in 1965.

"I don't buy this argument he was just doing his job, just following the rule," said Lewis, one of more than a dozen witnesses who testified after Roberts.

Roberts' supporters said accusing him of racial insensitivity would be wrong.

"These charges are, at best, misplaced and, at worst, deliberately misleading attacks that would have been leveled against anyone nominated to the high court by this president," said Jennifer Cabranes Braceras, a Republican appointee on the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.

Schumer questioned whether Roberts would be "a truly modest, temperate, careful judge," as the nominee contends, or, as some Democrats fear, one who "will use your enormous talents to use the court to turn back a near century of progress."

Democrats have complained that Roberts avoided many of their questions by saying he couldn't comment on issues that could come before the Supreme Court.

Early on in his third day of testimony, Roberts said Congress has the authority to pass laws barring discrimination based on race, gender and disability, and he defended his record on minority issues.

He said he had argued cases in favor of and against affirmative action.

"Yes, I was in an administration that was opposed to quotas," Roberts told Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass. "Opposition to quotas is not the same thing as opposition to affirmative action."

Several Democrats have criticized Roberts for assailing the Supreme Court's 5-4 ruling in Plyler v. Doe, which struck down a Texas law and said the state had to provide free public education to illegal immigrant children.

Roberts, then working for the Reagan administration, criticized the ruling and argued that the administration should have gotten involved in the case.

Feinstein asked if Roberts, as a person, believed illegal immigrant children should be educated. Roberts offered legal responses, before saying, "My own view, every child should be educated."

As chief justice, Roberts would assign the writing of opinions in which he was with the majority. Rehnquist's predecessor, Warren Burger has been accused of being manipulative in the assigning of opinions, even joining the majority, though he disagreed, so he could assign an opinion to himself and try to limit the outcome.

Roberts rejected the idea of assigning cases as a tactical move.

"Trying to use that assignment power in a tactical way _ it causes tension on the court and I think undermines the ability of the chief justice _ to the extent he has that ability, and it's obviously limited _ to act as a force to help bring about some cohesiveness and collegiality," he said.