The rumors of my death have been greatly exaggerated

Prior to the nominations of Harriet Miers and the newly appointed Chief Justice John Roberts, many conservatives and Republicans had decried the tactics they feared the Democrats might use in order to block an appointment by Bush administration. Filibustering, that centuries old stratagem used on every side of the political spectrum in order to block appointments and laws when the majority appeared overly powerful, was itself called into question. Judging by some of the conservative propaganda released, one would be forgiven for believing that it was a new invention by the Democrats, thought up purely to impede Congressional proceedings and the democratic process. The right-wing, working on the presumption that President Bush would nominate a candidate who held views favorable to their base, launched a pre-emptive media strike—claiming that no candidate should be rejected on ideological grounds.

In recent history, the Republicans have become easily agitated on the subject of Supreme Court nominees in large part due to two instances: Robert Bork’s rejection and the perceived traitorous ideological switch by David Souter.

Robert Bork, a staunch conservative and a strict constructionist, was nominated by Ronald Reagan in 1987. His reputation preceded him and within hours of his nomination, Senator Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts famously delivered a speech in which he publicly denounced the nominee’s views. Mr. Kennedy painted a portrait abhorrent to most Americans—that with Mr. Bork on the court, civil rights and the right to privacy would be drastically rolled back. While many Republicans were outraged at Mr. Kennedy’s portrayal of their choice, Mr. Bork had admitted that his belief was that an individual’s right to privacy was not explicitly set out in the text of the Constitution. Still wounded from the rejection of Mr. Bork, the Republicans were later handed Justice David Souter. Although appointed by President George H.W. Bush, Justice Souter has migrated towards a more centrist role, and often writes opinions with the liberal end of the bench. Now Souter’s name is uttered with near-derision by conservatives who feel cheated by his ostensible shift in political philosophy.

In recent months, the Bush administration and their conservative base have laid the groundwork for a charged political battle by claiming that the Democrats will filibuster an ideologically-divisive nominee. Still bitter about their own failed attempts to appoint an ultra-conservative to the bench, they seem bent on pushing such a nominee through now that they have control of the Executive and Legislative branches of the federal government. Ironically, many Constitutional scholars contend that the filibuster is an instrument required by a democratic government in order to prevent the appointment of extreme ideologues. Even President George Washington was not awarded a rubber stamp on his nominees for the high court.

Somewhat hypocritically, but perhaps not unexpectedly, the Republicans have modified their view on the issue. In fact, the President’s conservative base has contributed to a veritable uproar regarding Mr. Bush’s latest nominee. While they do not oppose Harriet Miers on the basis of cronyism (which I’ve previously stated is a justifiable concern) or her questionable judicial experience (or lack thereof), they oppose her on ideological grounds. The extent of their hypocrisy is astounding, their statements indefensibly illogical. Coming hot on the heels of their attacks on the Democrats for rejecting a candidate who has a philosophy that concerns them, one can only wonder how the Republicans can continue to irreverently switch their positions dramatically at opportune times and not appear to be making a mockery of the public. This is not to let the Democrats off the hook for their reaction. Senator Harry Reid for example, was quick to approve of Ms. Miers, barely taking the time to fully read up on her background. However, in this case, the Republicans’ offenses are far worse.