WASHINGTON — Republicans and Democrats agree about little in Washington these days, but they concur on this: The confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominee Samuel A. Alito Jr., which open today, will be utterly unlike those for John G. Roberts Jr.
For one, the nominee is different. Roberts was smooth and youthful-looking, with charmingly fidgety children and just two years on the federal bench. By contrast, Alito has displayed the physical awkwardness of an absent-minded professor and -- more significantly -- has 15 years' worth of rulings as a federal judge for critics to pick apart.
Second, the political climate in Washington has shifted considerably in the three months since Roberts was confirmed as chief justice.
These days, many Republicans are preoccupied with containing the damage from ongoing controversies. These include whether President Bush was justified in authorizing domestic spying by the National Security Agency, a dispute that strikes at a core function of the Supreme Court -- presiding over the system of checks and balances between the executive and legislative branches.
Democrats, meanwhile, are looking for ways to capitalize on this and other issues, and the Alito hearings offer a venue with a national television audience.
"Our goal will be to highlight the difference between the parties on ... key constitutional issues," said Jim Manley, a spokesman and strategist for Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.).
Roberts' reassuring manner and flashes of humor helped win him unexpectedly high support from Democrats after his September hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee. And to the extent Democrats worried that he was more politically conservative than they wanted, the fact he would replace an equally conservative justice, former Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, made him more palatable.
In the end, the Senate's 44 Democrats split evenly over Roberts, who won his confirmation vote, 78 to 22.
In nearly every way, Alito is expected to be a more controversial nominee.
For instance, he wrote in a 1985 job application with the Justice Department that he was "particularly proud" of his efforts to promote the view "that the Constitution does not protect a right to an abortion," a red-flag statement for core Democratic voters.
