Another judicial pick in cross fire

The partisan deadlock over judicial nominations in the Senate came to a head with yesterday’s hearing for White House Counsel Brett M. Kavanaugh, nominated by President Bush to the nation’s second-highest court.

During 3 hours of tough — sometimes combative — questioning, Mr. Kavanaugh became a lightning rod for the most acrimonious issues that have divided Washington in recent years.

“If President Bush wanted to unite us, would he nominate Brett Kavanaugh?” asked Sen. Charles E. Schumer of New York, who led the Democratic questioning of the nominee to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. “This would be the last nomination he would send to the Senate. You could not think of another nomination, given Mr. Kavanaugh’s record, more designed to divide us.”

Democrats on the panel interrogated Mr. Kavanaugh over his current role advising Mr. Bush on the judicial nominees they vehemently oppose. They interrogated him about helping Kenneth W. Starr investigate the “peccadillos” of former President Clinton. And they interrogated him about what he knew about the internal Democratic memos purloined by two Republican staffers working for the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Kavanaugh even helped Mr. Bush during the 2000 election recount in Florida, Mr. Schumer noted.

The confirmation process has slowed to a trickle this year after Mr. Bush — impatient with Senate Democrats’ refusal to vote on his nominees — sidestepped the Senate with two “recess appointments” to the appellate bench. Charles W. Pickering Sr., placed on the 5th Circuit, and William H. Pryor, placed on the 11th Circuit, will face confirmation again next year when the new Congress convenes.

On numerous occasions during yesterday’s hearing, Democrats stopped Mr. Kavanaugh before he answered a question and warned that he was still under oath.

One question from Sen. Patrick J. Leahy, Vermont Democrat, brought a gentle correction from Mr. Kavanaugh, who disputed the facts laid out in the question.

“Mr. Kavanaugh, I was there,” Mr. Leahy snapped. “You’re under oath. I’m not.”

“Welcome to the pit,” said Sen. Jeff Sessions, the Alabama Republican who launched a political career after the same committee defeated his nomination to the federal bench in 1986.

“The arena,” replied Mr. Kavanaugh, who remained polite throughout the questioning.

After Mr. Kavanaugh introduced his parents and fiancee seated behind him, Judiciary Committee Chairman Orrin G. Hatch, Utah Republican, asked Mr. Kavanaugh’s fiancee not to hold anything she heard about him at the hearing against him.

Some of the most intense exchanges, however, had little to do with Mr. Kavanaugh’s background, but the backgrounds of many other Bush nominees shepherded through by Mr. Kavanaugh.

Democrats argued that many of Mr. Bush’s nominees have been picked for their conservative views, while Mr. Kavanaugh maintained that discussions of political ideology never come up, even behind closed doors, at the White House.

“Of course ideology has played a role in this process,” Mr. Schumer said. “Suggesting otherwise insults our intelligence and the intelligence of the American people.”

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, California Democrat, asserted that Mr. Bush selected nominees based on a pro-life litmus test. Mr. Kavanaugh explained that the White House doesn’t ask potential nominees about their position on abortion.

“Are you saying you don’t know,” she asked incredulously. “Let me ask you this: Could you identify five pro-choice judges that the White House sent to the Hill? Four? Three? Two? One?”

Given Mr. Kavanaugh’s position at the forefront of the battle over judicial nominations during the past three years, even Republicans privately doubt he will be confirmed anytime soon.

And based on yesterday’s hearing, Democrats appear in no mood to negotiate.

“Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to the D.C. Circuit is not just a drop of salt in the partisan wounds,” Mr. Schumer said. “It’s the whole shaker.”