Legal experts differed sharply in testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee over what impact Judge Robert Bork's free-market approach to antitrust law would have on competition and consumers. "A wide array of anti-competitive practices which have been specifically outlawed by statute or (by) settled Supreme Court precedent would be rendered lawful if Judge Bork's antitrust views held sway," New York Attorney General Robert Abrams warned yesterday, as the committee concluded 12 days of hearings on the Supreme Court nomination. But Donald Baker, a Washington lawyer and former chief of the Justice Department's Antitrust Division, said in a statement that Judge Bork is in the "mainstream of antitrust," which "means his antitrust thinking . . . . is widely used by antitrust practitioners, antitrust courts and even antitrust professors." Meanwhile, President Reagan launched a new, more vigorous campaign on behalf of Judge Bork's nomination, which is losing momentum. Speaking to representatives of groups supporting the nomination, he portrayed Judge Bork's opponents as liberal "special interest groups," asserted that Judge Bork would be tough on criminals, and said there has been a "deliberate campaign of disinformation and distortion" waged against the nominee. Separately, Sen. Robert Packwood of Oregon, the only Republican senator to publicly oppose the nomination so far, said he knows of between three and five other Republicans who may oppose Judge Bork. "There are three I can count on for sure," he told reporters. He added: "They're pretty experienced and tough" and may be able to withstand White House pressure to support Judge Bork. Sen. Packwood's prediction is significant because moderate Republicans are one of two groups, along with southern Democrats, who may tip the balance for or against Judge Bork in the closely divided Senate. Democratic strategists say they need at least three or four Republican votes against the nomination to defeat it. White House Chief of Staff Howard Baker yesterday dismissed an earlier assessment by Sen. Alan Cranston of California, the assistant Democratic leader. Sen. Cranston said on Tuesday that he estimated 49 votes against Judge Bork, 40 in favor and 11 undecided. Mr. Baker said yesterday that Sen. Cranston "is the worst vote counter in the United States Senate today." Mr. Baker said that he counts "40 plus" votes for the nominee, "30 plus" votes against him, and "30 souls yet to be saved." Sen. Alan Simpson of Wyoming, the chief Republican vote counter in the Senate, also disputed Mr. Cranston's count. The full Senate isn't likely to vote until November, but the Judiciary Committee is set to vote Tuesday on whether to send the nomination to the Senate with no recommendation or whether to forward it with a positive or negative report. The 60-year-old Judge Bork, a federal appeals court judge, is a recognized expert in antitrust law. In a book and other writings he has argued that antitrust laws don't always fulfill their goal of promoting competition, and has urged greater use of economic analysis to decide what business activities are anti-competitive. In yesterday's testimony, Robert Pitofsky, dean of Georgetown University Law School and a former Federal Trade Commission member, said Judge Bork advocates "an antitrust program more conservative than proposed by almost anyone else." He said Judge Bork favors making legal practically all price and other restrictive agreements between manufacturers and distributors, and that his approach to mergers between competitors would make the Reagan administration's "lenient" policy "seem recklessly restrictive." But in testimony delivered Tuesday night, Mr. Baker and University of Michigan Law School professor Thomas Kauper praised Mr. Bork's contribution to antitrust theory. Mr. Kauper said there isn't any reason to assume Judge Bork would overrule antitrust precedents or federal laws and that Judge Bork advocates an antitrust approach "designed to promote consumer welfare." In his White House speech to Bork supporters, President Reagan delivered his sternest defense yet of his Supreme Court nominee and his harshest attack on foes of the nomination. He said the vote on Judge Bork will be a "crossroad of conscience" for the Senate. "We will not be satisfied with allowing special interests to determine the qualifications to serve on our country's highest court," he asserted. Mr. Reagan maintained, as the White House has for months, that Judge Bork's philosophy is in the "mainstream of contemporary thought." But the president also emphasized, in stronger terms than previously, his view that Judge Bork would be a law-and-order justice who would aid the fight against crime. "Judge Bork has argued for more reasonable interpretations of criminal procedures that assure both justice and the prompt conviction of criminals, rather than allowing dangerous criminals to go free on unjustified technicalities," Mr. Reagan said. White House officials think the view of Judge Bork as a champion of crime fighters is politically appealing but believe it hasn't gotten enough attention during the Senate's confirmation hearings. The White House intends to keep hitting away on this and similar themes. President Reagan is scheduled to deliver another pitch for Judge Bork today when he speaks at the swearing-in of William Sessions as the new chief of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. --- Monica Langley contributed to this article.
Judge Bork specializes in antitrust law. In testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, legal experts differed sharply over what impact Bork's free-market approach to antitrust law would have on competition and consumers. Some say his antitrust views are too conservative. Others praise his approach as "designed to promote consumer welfare." President Reagan believes special interest groups have conducted a deliberate campaign of disinformation and distortion about Bork, aimed to sway moderate Republicans who along with southern Democrats are needed to defeat Bork's nomination. The Supreme Court has never ruled that an appointment is invalid because it was made by someone whose political beliefs or party affiliation were not disclosed.