01:00 AM EST on Sunday, March 26, 2006

When former Rhode Island Supreme Court Justice Robert Flanders strode last Monday into the freshman constitutional law seminar he teaches at his alma mater, Brown University, a cry of "Congratulations!" rang out and the students applauded.

Well, why not? Republican Flanders, 56, had emerged as GOP Sen. Lincoln Chafee's pick for a seat on the U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston.

In fact, Flanders became part of the day's lesson. When a dialog about libel law turned to a discussion of examples of who's a public figure, one of the students declared, "You are."

Of course, Flanders, Class of 1971, was in the limelight even in his student days, when he was a football and baseball standout. Since leaving the state's top court in 2004, he has emerged as a high-profile lawyer -- you know, the Robert Urciuoli hospital corruption case -- and as chairman of the drive for voter initiative.

When I asked Flanders where he now places himself on life's journey, he chuckled, "I'm at a transfer station."

I'm not a bit surprised that Chafee tapped him. After all, the Harvard Law graduate has been considered an appeals court prospect since he was on the state bench.

Even so, Flanders seemed to be flourishing in his new life. In January, he told me how much he was relishing the challenge of representing Urciuoli -- the indicted former president of Roger Williams Medical Center -- and of appreciating the opportunity to preside at a news conference about the case. "As a former athlete and as someone who enjoys the competition, this was where you want to be," he said.

That was then and this is Flanders now. The husband of the former Ann Walls told me that when Chafee approached him about the appointment, he was thrilled, although he had some immediate concerns. "The first thing was: 'How am I going to break this to my wife?' You know, we have just made an adjustment coming off of eight and a half years on the Rhode Island Supreme Court."

The appeals court seat currently pays $171,800 a year. "That's certainly one concern. It's a two-thirds pay cut from what you could make in private practice, and it's just a much more isolating lifestyle."

Plus, his partners at Hinckley, Allen & Snyder had been "absolutely terrific" to him. "I was concerned about how they would react after making this investment in me to come with their firm, and my practice is thriving."

But in his head he knew immediately he wanted to do it? It was more in the heart, he said. "This is something that I know I can do well and that I know I enjoy doing and I think I can make a real contribution. This is service at a very high level."

But wait a minute. He had a job like that and he walked away from it. "I was ready at the time for new challenges," he says.

And, "Let's face it. The chance to participate at this high a level of government doesn't come every day. To be a judge on this court is to have an opportunity to influence people's lives in a way that no one lawyer could ever hope to do no matter how good they are, no matter how involved they are, no matter how many clients they have."

Flanders certainly has enjoyed trying his hand at teaching and holds out the possibility of continuing even while an appeals court judge. At the Brown class I saw, he led the students through the ins and outs of free speech/free press issues, such as the 1971 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that the government couldn't block The New York Times from publishing the Pentagon Papers, a secret history of the Vietnam War.

He gently but persistently grilled the students in a manner reminiscent of a judge putting lawyers through their paces. "Why was the United States seeking to enjoin this newspaper from publishing this information? . . . What exactly was in these papers that the government was so concerned about? . . . Much is made of this concept called a 'prior restraint.' What is a prior restraint and why is it so odious to the First Amendment? . . . Are there are any circumstances where a prior restraint would be justified? . . . You mentioned the burden of proof. What's the takeaway from this case as to what the burden of proof is on the government?"

The exercise reminded me that judges come and go -- but their opinions live on. Among Flanders' questions: "What's Burger's position in dissent? . . . Douglas tells us that there's no declaration of war. What's White's position?"

The students tell me Flanders has them reading 80 to 100 pages a week of briefs and opinions. "He's a great professor," says Liz Schroeder, from Granby, Conn. She reports that the course "really makes me think a lot."

Flanders also teaches at the Roger Williams University law school.

ON THE STATE court, Flanders often found himself in dissent (a trait he shares with Chafee, a moderate in conservative Republican-dominated Washington.) Flanders asserts now, "I wouldn't say I was unhappy. . . . It's frustrating sometimes to dissent in very important cases, but that just comes with the territory . . . It may be I'll have to dissent from time to time on this court."

At the March 17 news conference at which Chafee announced his selection, Flanders said that he would uphold the U.S. Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade abortion decision. "I'm bound to follow the Supreme Court precedent," he said.

Later, I asked Chafee, who is "pro-choice," if he had discussed abortion with Flanders. "Not in great detail," he said.

I wondered what detail: "You said, 'Are you pro-choice?' and he said, 'Yes,' and that was it?"

Chafee said, "He agrees with my position on a number of issues."

But when, in an interview last Monday, I asked Flanders about abortion and Chafee, he said, "I don't think we discussed specific issues at all. We did have a conversation about, you know, generally I think there's a lot of good feeling between Senator Chafee and myself because we both know what it's like to disagree with our colleagues from time to time."

I asked, "Are you pro choice?"

Flanders replied, "I don't have a position . . . As an appeals court judge I have to do what the U.S. Supreme Court says."

I pointed out that legislatures often try to get around Roe, or temper it, by adopting waiting periods, parental notification requirements and so on. Would Flanders try to preserve choice or would he be eager to find some way to reduce the number of abortions? He said he simply would want to follow whatever the Supreme Court says.

But what if a case came before him on a point the high court had not ruled on? "In that event, I'd have to look at it, but I certainly wouldn't prejudge it now by saying, you know, if it had something to do with restricting the right of abortion I would strike it down, or vice versa."

Now, eavesdropping. Chafee believes President Bush's antiterrorism program of warrantless wiretaps of some U.S. citizen is illegal.

Chafee told me he had briefly discussed eavesdropping with Flanders and had made it clear how seriously he takes the matter. And what did Flanders say? "He agrees with me," Chafee said. "He's a strong Bill of Rights person."

"That's a fair assessment of my views," Flanders told me. "I mean, I think that, naturally, there's always a concern about the extent to which the executive should be allowed to look into people's homes and places, and yet we have this other equal concern about security in this post-9/11 world. So, absolutely, that's going to be an issue that the courts are going to have to deal with for the foreseeable future: to what extent are compromises in our privacy something that's reasonable under the circumstances, given the concerns for security?"

Has Mr. Bush been violating the law? "I can't make that conclusion without knowing what the facts are," Flanders said.

Well, he's been reading about this controversy, no? "That's not enough," he said. "You need to see the facts."

Flanders said he is "distressed" that so many people have been killed in the Iraq war. "But I appreciate the nobility of the goal there, which is to bring democracy to that area and to free the people from what has been a savage dictatorship."

As for President Bush, the man he is hoping will heed Chafee's recommendation and name him to the bench, Flanders sees him as having "solid values," a man of "principle."

Flanders said, "You can quarrel with individual decisions that he makes, but, on the whole, I think he's tying to do the right thing, and I support him and his efforts."

Flanders' nomination would be subject to Senate confirmation.

Chafee told me he had not cleared Flanders' name with Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Arlen Specter or with the Justice Department. Still, he said, with Flanders' résumé, "I think we're in good shape."

He called it "unlikely" that anyone in Senate Republican ranks or the administration might say, "Chafee's not with us" or Flanders is too liberal. "I respect their parameters and that went into consideration," Chafee said. "I know the route this nomination has to take."

IN THE WAY that senators see themselves as potential presidents, Flanders says federal appeals judges see themselves as U.S. Supreme Court prospects. Drawing a baseball analogy, the former Detroit Tigers farmhand says, "This is the Triple A, so to speak, for the major leagues."

He adds, "No lawyer who sits on a Court of Appeals and is of a certain age wouldn't admit to dreaming of one day having a chance to be on the U.S. Supreme Court. You'd have to have lightning strike to have it happen, but it happens."

M. Charles Bakst is The Journal's political columnist.

mbakst@projo.com /(401) 277-7638