In the wake of the Senate Judiciary Committee's 9-5 rejection yesterday of Judge Robert H. Bork, Harvard experts foretold doom for the Supreme Court nominee and negative repercussions for the Reagan Administration.

Tyler Professor of Constitutional Law Laurence H. Tribe '62, who recently testified against Bork, said the committee's recommendation not to confirm Bork as retiring Justice Lewis F. Powell's successor erases any chance the conservative jurist still may have had to serve on the High Court.

"I think at this point they're using Judge Bork for their own political purpose, which is a little bit unsavory," Tribe said. "They're trying to win the support of the moderates and those in the middle for the next nominee."

Tribe also said Reagan's persistence in what seems to be a lost cause will prove damaging to the lameduck President "In the end, I think this will be the cause of resentment of the administration," said Tribe, one of Bork's most vocal critics.

Professor of Law Alan M. Dershowitz, who said he declined to testify because he did not want the Senate confirmation hearings to be dominated by academic testimony, said he hopes the Senate will have influence on the President's next nomination.

"I think that the next issue will be how to prevent the President from nominating a Bork clone as the next nominee," Dershowitz said. "We want to pressure the President into seeking the advice of the Senate before making a nomination."

Assistant Professor of Government Stephen Macedo, a conservative who had been scheduled to testify against Bork, said that the relatively quick change in the Judiciary Committee's outlook signified that the tide had taken a definite turn against Bork.

"Not too long ago there seemed to be some chance that they would vote not to make a recommendation," Macedo said, adding, "My impression is that a lot of people felt that his backing away from the extreme positions he had taken in his articles left them without very much confidence about how he would vote in the future."

Pforzheimer University Professor Sidney Verba '53 also hailed the Senate committee's vote against the conservative jurist.

"I'm delighted to see the vote because I think [Bork] represents a view of constitutional interpretation and the role of the Court that would have been very damaging to a number of advances that have been made in the past few decades, such as the rights of women and minorities," he said.