WASHINGTON — Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee made it easy on controversial judicial nominee Thomas B. Griffith by not showing up Tuesday to challenge his nomination to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia — often referred to as the second-highest court in the land.

Now, the hard part will be getting the committee to actually vote on the nomination before lawmakers adjourn their lame duck session this weekend.

"It will be difficult but not impossible," said committee Chairman Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah.

Barring confirmation, President Bush would have to renominate Griffith, currently general counsel for Brigham Young University, next year, and the entire process would be repeated.

Ranking Democrat Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., did not attend the hearing but issued a statement signaling Democrats may fight this particular nomination, saying there are "serious questions (that) require careful examination and deliberation."

In response, Hatch, who has taken a personal interest in pushing through the nomination, distributed a one-inch-thick stack of endorsements from Democrats and Republicans who call Griffith a brilliant, fair and worthy judicial candidate.

Griffith, who previously worked as the chief legal officer to the U.S. Senate and managed the impeachment of former President Clinton, has been targeted by some Democrats on the committee as too conservative.

Opponents outside the committee opened a new attack Tuesday, accusing Griffith of being too religious for the job.

"Griffith's extensive discussion of religion in his speeches and writings makes clear that his faith would guide him in his service as a judge," wrote Alliance for Justice, adding that in principle there is nothing wrong with that.

But Griffith, the group claims, has been "noticeably less forthcoming about the relationship between religious beliefs and the dictates of the law."

"Could he render a judgment that was legally correct but contrary to his religious beliefs? Does he acknowledge the separation of church and state that is at the core of our secular constitutional democracy? These questions must be answered before the Senate can pass judgment on his fitness for the bench," the group wrote in its report to the committee.

Hatch, the only member of the committee present for most of the hearing, did not ask those questions.