In media battle over Roberts, GOP on top

"The Bush administration could not have handled this nomination much better," says Charlie Cook. "The key was securing the center and counting on the conservative base staying in line, albeit a bit uneasily."

In contrast to the largely unified Republican support for Roberts, "there is a big split in the Democratic Party between the liberals and all the others," says Sabato.

"We are in an era when unanimous approval of Supreme Court nominees is a thing of the past. So liberals will likely vote against [Roberts]. Most of the other Democrats will vote for him. So the chances of a successful filibuster are virtually nil."

In fact, two Democratic senators, Mary Landrieu of Louisiana and Ben Nelson of Nebraska, already have said they are leaning toward supporting Roberts's confirmation.

Among other issues, Democrats are split on how much to emphasize abortion in the nomination battle. Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts told party operatives that he believed the Democratic stance on abortion and gay rights cost him the 2004 presidential election.

And last week a top Clinton administration official, Lanny Davis, was front and center in criticizing the NARAL ad, telling The New York Times it was "inaccurate, filled with innuendo and shameless."

In coming days, the battle over Roberts is expected to focus on documents and specifically over whether the White House has provided sufficient information to the Senate. Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee are united in wanting the White House to release documents from Roberts's service from 1989 to 1993, when he was principal deputy solicitor general during George H.W. Bush's presidency.

Last Friday, committee Democrats wrote to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales asking him to reconsider a decision not to release those documents, which Democrats say are essential to understanding Roberts's views on civil rights.

"Of various administration positions he has held, his service as the 'political' deputy in the [Office of the Solicitor General] may well be the most relevant for evaluating the Supreme Court nomination," the Democrats wrote.

But earlier last week, committee Chairman Arlen Specter (R) of Pennsylvania sided with the White House in the dispute, eliminating the possibility that the committee would issue a subpoena for the documents.

After receiving the letter from the Judiciary Committee Democrats, a Justice Department spokesman said, "as seven former solicitor generals have stated previously, the confidentiality that enables the solicitor general's office to vigorously defend United States interests should not be sacrificed as part of the confirmation process."

Meanwhile, evangelical Christian supporters of the Roberts nomination planned a televised rally Sunday called "Justice Sunday II" to be broadcast from a large church in Nashville, Tenn.

Analysts, however, do not expect the broadcast to have much lasting impact. "I don't read much importance into this Justice Sunday thing," says Charlie Cook. "Viewers are a sliver of a fringe of a movement."

Rothenberg adds, "There is no evidence that Roberts's supporters need another Justice Sunday or would benefit from another Justice Sunday."

Page: 1 | 2