Law Profs Denounce Criticism of Breyer

Law School professors interviewed yesterday objected to recent criticism leveled at Supreme Court nominee Stephen G. Breyer and predicted an easy confirmation for their former colleague.

Breyer, who attended the Law School and subsequently taught classes there and at the Kennedy School of Government, has been showered with praise by senators from across the ideological spectrum.

But in Senate Judiciary Committee hearings last week, Breyer faced charges of conflict of interest stemming from his decision to hear eight pollution cases while serving as a member of the Lloyd's of London insurance syndicate.

Breyer's investments at Lloyd's of London included environmental liability insurance policies.

Breyer has maintained that he did not violate any laws or judicial ethics codes. Most members of the committee said last week that they agree.

And even Breyer's most vocal critic on this front, Sen. Howard Metzenbaum (D-Ohio), has said he won't let the issue stop him from voting for the judge.

Breyer has had to confront one other major criticism that professors say is even more unfounded.

On Friday, consumer activist Ralph Nader testified for the committee that Breyer has demonstrated "a pronounced inclination to favor corporations" over smaller businesses and consumers.

Nader also testified before the committee that the judge's attitude in environmental cases "belittles hazards and exaggerates costs."

Breyer was not at the hearings to defend himself, but several senators defended the nominee and countered Nader's testimony.

The two charges are the only ones interrupting the otherwise smooth confirmation hearings.

The Harvard professors interviewed agreed that Breyer's confirmation seems imminent.

Carter Professor of General Jurisprudence Charles Fried denounced all the charges as "totally insubstantial."

"[Almost] every well-known, respected, established ethics expert have said this is not a conflict of interest," Fried said yesterday.

Fried described Nader's conduct as "bizarre" and said he gave the consumer activist's charges no credibility.

"Nader is an extremist," Fried said. "The Senate has chewed him up, between berating him and making fun of him."

Fried, who said Breyer is a colleague, friendand former student, predicted an easy confirmationfor the judge.

Bromley Professor of Law Arthur R. Milleragreed.

Miller described Nader as one of his "dearfriends in life" and said he has the "greatestadmiration" for him.

"But it strikes me that he's off base on thisone," Miller said. "Steve is one of the mostbalanced individuals I know. I have hot noticedany predilection toward big business."

"We live in a world where we judge nominees onsingle issues," Miller added." It seems to me thatthat's what's [happening in this case]... I thinkit's misguided."

Miller termed the conflict of interest charges"utter nonsense."

"As everyone has pointed out, his conduct wascompletely consistent with the rules of judicialbehavior," Miller said. "This is a red herring."

Miller said he thinks Breyer has the potentialto be a "great justice, bringing an orderliness tothe Supreme Court that it has lacked for manyyears."

Scott Professor of Law David R. Herwitz saidBreyer is a "dear friend, colleague and one of thefinest federal judges."

Herwitz said of Nader's charges, "They'repreposterous. Mr. Nader is preposterous ingeneral, and he's more preposterous on thispoint."

Herwitz said he thinks Breyer will be confirmed"easily."

And Professor of Law Reinier H. Kraakmanagreed.

"I'm absolutely certain Breyer is an honorablefellow about all this," Kraakman said of theconflict of interest charges.

Kraakman also joined his colleagues in beratingNader.

"I think Nader's a little wacky," Kraakmansaid. "Breyer's a very thoughtful, pragmaticfellow...My guess is that he'll go right through[the Senate].

Fried, who said Breyer is a colleague, friendand former student, predicted an easy confirmationfor the judge.

Bromley Professor of Law Arthur R. Milleragreed.

Miller described Nader as one of his "dearfriends in life" and said he has the "greatestadmiration" for him.

"But it strikes me that he's off base on thisone," Miller said. "Steve is one of the mostbalanced individuals I know. I have hot noticedany predilection toward big business."

"We live in a world where we judge nominees onsingle issues," Miller added." It seems to me thatthat's what's [happening in this case]... I thinkit's misguided."

Miller termed the conflict of interest charges"utter nonsense."

"As everyone has pointed out, his conduct wascompletely consistent with the rules of judicialbehavior," Miller said. "This is a red herring."

Miller said he thinks Breyer has the potentialto be a "great justice, bringing an orderliness tothe Supreme Court that it has lacked for manyyears."

Scott Professor of Law David R. Herwitz saidBreyer is a "dear friend, colleague and one of thefinest federal judges."

Herwitz said of Nader's charges, "They'repreposterous. Mr. Nader is preposterous ingeneral, and he's more preposterous on thispoint."

Herwitz said he thinks Breyer will be confirmed"easily."

And Professor of Law Reinier H. Kraakmanagreed.

"I'm absolutely certain Breyer is an honorablefellow about all this," Kraakman said of theconflict of interest charges.

Kraakman also joined his colleagues in beratingNader.

"I think Nader's a little wacky," Kraakmansaid. "Breyer's a very thoughtful, pragmaticfellow...My guess is that he'll go right through[the Senate].