WASHINGTON – In a twist in the battle over Judge Samuel Alito, Democrats yesterday attacked the conservative Supreme Court nominee for a 1985 memo in which he advanced arguments seeking to limit abortion rights markedly similar to those Justice O’Connor – the socially liberal justice he aims to replace – has used to broaden such rights.

As a young lawyer in the U.S. Justice Department, Samuel Alito advised Reagan administration officials against directly assaulting Roe v. Wade in favor of an incremental approach that chipped away at the landmark decision by getting the high court first to uphold relatively minor state restrictions. The administration rejected this approach and lost its case.

“I find this approach preferable to a frontal assault on Roe v. Wade,” Mr. Alito wrote of his proposed strategy. “It has the advantages of a brief devoted to the overruling of Roe v. Wade: It makes our position clear, does not even tacitly concede Roe’s legitimacy, and signals that we regard the question as live and open.”

Democrats who will vote on Judge Alito’s confirmation saw in the 1985 memo evidence that the nominee would vote to restrict abortion rights. One Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Schumer of New York, called the memo’s language “stunning,” saying that it “cast serious doubt” on whether Judge Alito would be objective in cases involving abortion rights.

Yet Mr. Schumer’s objection to the memo is noteworthy, legal analysts said, given that Judge Alito’s argument mirrored one that has been used by Justice O’Connor in two abortion cases since 1983, including Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which reaffirmed Roe’s central holding. Though Justice O’Connor sided with the majority in Planned Parenthood, she reiterated her earlier view that states are free to regulate abortion as long as they don’t do so in a way that poses an undue burden on women who seek the procedure.

Justice Kennedy later attacked Justice O’Connor’s defense of states rights in the abortion context. In his dissent from an opinion that overturned 30 state laws prohibiting partial-birth abortion, Stenberg v. Carhart, Justice Kennedy wrote that Justice O’Connor had departed from her earlier standard by moving to strike state laws that, he said, could not be construed as posing an undue burden.

Judge Alito’s newly-unearthed defense of states rights in the abortion context means that those, like Senator Schumer, who called on President Bush to nominate as a replacement for Justice O’Connor someone whose judicial philosophy resembles her own are now poised to dig in against Judge Alito for taking a position that Justice O’Connor has defended, at least rhetorically, in abortion rulings dating back more than two decades. “The legal position that Alito advocated as a lawyer working for the Reagan administration – that state informed consent provisions are constitutional – was exactly the same position that O’Connor and six other justices adopted in Planned Parenthood v. Casey,” the president of the Ethics and Public Policy Center and a former clerk for Justice Scalia, Edward Whelan, said.

The Republican chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Specter, of Pennsylvania, has said abortion will be a central focus of Judge Alito’s hearing, set to begin January 9. Judge Alito’s abortion rulings on the Philadelphia based federal Appeals Court for the 3rd Circuit appear to cut both ways: In one, he wrote the lone dissent in upholding a Pennsylvania law that required women to notify their husbands before an abortion; in another, he ruled to strike down a New Jersey law that banned partial-birth abortion.

Until now, the most hotly debated document connected with Judge Alito’s nomination was a statement he wrote when applying for a job at the Justice Department five months prior to the memo that was released yesterday. In it, Judge Alito said it was “an honor and a source of personal satisfaction” to advance legal positions opposing quotas and federal abortion rights during his time in the Reagan administration.

Chief Justice Roberts avoided being tarred for his work in the Reagan administration by arguing that he was solely advancing them on his clients’ behalf. Democrats have said they will not accept that argument from Judge Alito in light of the overt conservatism he expressed in the 1985 job application.

Judge Alito can also expect to be questioned closely about his association with the Federalist Society. Democrats criticized Chief Justice Roberts early on in his confirmation process when a record surfaced connecting him to the conservative lawyers’ group. Those concerns dissipated when Chief Justice Roberts denied having been a member.

Judge Alito noted a 22-year membership with the organization in a 64-page questionnaire released yesterday by the Judiciary Committee. Moreover, he cited 11 separate occasions on which he spoke at Federalist Society events and two on which he spoke at events of a conservative think tank, the Heritage Foundation. In 2001, Judge Alito received the “Golden Gavel” award from a conservative think tank that has played a lead role on behalf of President Bush’s federal judicial nominees, the Family Research Council.

Indeed, the questionnaire, which ran to 261 pages with appendices, portrayed Judge Alito as conservative more by association than by virtue of his writings or affiliations. He responded to reports about his alleged involvement with a now-defunct conservative organization at Princeton University, Concerned Alumni of Princeton, by saying that he has “no recollection of being a member, of attending meetings, or otherwise participating in the activities of the group.” And his talks at Federalist Society and other events appeared to deal mostly with his general impressions on the importance of lawyers, the problem of crime, or other neutral topics.

Still, Judge Alito’s conservative credentials were strong enough to land him on the short list for the Supreme Court early in President Bush’s first term. The questionnaire notes that he was interviewed for a potential spot in June 2001 and then, again, in May and July of this year. He was contacted about replacing a previous nominee, Harriet Miers, the day after she withdrew.

Newspaper clips listed in the questionnaire underscored Judge Alito’s experience as a criminal prosecutor while serving as U.S. attorney for the District of New Jersey. His first mention in 34 pages of newspaper citations was a 1987 article titled “New U.S. Attorney Appointed for Jersey.” The second most recent article, from July, was titled “Appeals Court Judge Is a Contender.” In between were hundreds of articles about mob cases, scams, bribery, terrorism, and insider trading.

A lifelong employee of the federal government, Judge Alito’s financial disclosure statement shows that public service pays: The 55-year-old father of two has a net worth of $2.1 million, including $243,700 in cash and $848,000 in securities. His home in West Caldwell, N.J., is worth $869,000; and he owns other personal property worth $150,000. His largest single holding is $161,000 in Exxon Mobil stock.

In a lengthy essay on judicial activism, Judge Alito wrote that the Constitution sets forth a limited role for the judicial branch and that the proper sphere of the federal courts is “circumscribed.” Yet later in the same essay, he allowed for the court to reach outside its sphere: “When a constitutional or statutory violation has been proven, a court should not hesitate to impose a strong and lawful remedy if that is what is needed to provide full redress,” he wrote.