WASHINGTON—Facing his final questions before the Senate Judiciary Committee yesterday, John G. Roberts ’76 made his case to Democratic members who had voiced frustrations with his testimony this week, assuring them that he would not be an “ideologue” if confirmed as chief justice of the United States.

As the committee members grew increasingly divided along partisan lines, Roberts’ responses remained consistent, and his poised demeanor held steady throughout the four days of hearings.

While prominent Democratic members intensified their objections to Roberts’ reluctance to discuss details of legal cases and issues, many Republican senators on the committee continued to offer high praise for President Bush’s nominee, who is a graduate of Harvard College and Harvard Law School.

Roberts repeatedly said he prefers not to delve into matters that might come before the Supreme Court in the future, insisting he will be guided by a strict adherence to the rule of law. But this stance so irked the Democratic senators on Wednesday that they accused him of deliberately obscuring his personal views. They called for additional time with the nominee, causing the questioning to spill over into yesterday.

“Without any knowledge of your understanding of the law, because you will not share it with us, we are rolling the dice with you, judge,” Sen. Joseph R. Biden, D-Del., said on Wednesday. “It’s kind of interesting, this kabuki dance we have in these hearings here, as if the public doesn’t have a right to know what you think about fundamental issues facing them.”

Sen. Charles E. Schumer ’71, D-N.Y., also asserted that Roberts had been “less than forthcoming” with the committee.

“It seems strange, I think, to the American people that you can’t talk about decided cases—past cases, not future cases—when you’ve been nominated to the most important job in the federal judiciary,” Schumer said.

Yesterday, Schumer echoed Biden’s comments from Wednesday, saying, “This isn’t just rolling the dice—it’s betting the whole house.”

But despite those comments, Roberts did not budge from his position.

“Judges go on the bench and they apply and decide cases according to the judicial process, not on the basis of promises made earlier to get elected or promises made earlier to get confirmed,” he said.

Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., the committee’s chairman, appeared dissatisfied with Roberts’ responses during an exchange over laws aiding the disabled and victims of domestic violence. He was one of the few Republican members of the committee to seem irked.

“Judge Roberts, I’m not talking about an issue. I’m talking about the essence of jurisprudence,” he said. But, when questioned during a break, Specter did not protest Roberts’ reticence.

“He didn’t answer some of my questions, and I understand why he didn’t,” Specter said.

Specter, along with several other committee members, encouraged Roberts to create a consensus among the justices and avoid 5-4 decisions if he is confirmed.

Throughout the day, Roberts fielded a variety of questions that ranged from eminent domain, rights to life and death, and civil rights to the power of the executive, the interpretation of statutes, and the role of judges.