By Christopher G. Adamo

From the moment President Bush announced his choice of Harriet Miers to replace Sandra O’Connor on the Supreme Court, reaction from many conservatives has been immediate and fierce. Clearly, the Bush administration was blindsided by the degree of outrage being expressed by certain segments of its loyal base,

In an apparent effort at “damage control,” vice-President Dick Cheney spoke for several minutes with Rush Limbaugh on his radio program. In the face of Limbaugh’s uncharacteristically confrontational line of questioning, Cheney repeatedly attempted to reaffirm reasons to be confident in the President’s decision.

Cheney seemed truly perplexed at the cynicism and doubt expressed by conservatives, reiterating that they should simply “trust” the President to choose the kind of nominee he had promised to deliver during his campaign. In a Rose Garden speech the following morning, President Bush echoed this theme.

Unfortunately, the Bush Administration is only now beginning to recognize the degree to which those who have trusted the president in the past feel betrayed and disenfranchised.

In regards to spending, the President’s record has been abysmal, indisputably proving “compassionate conservatism” to be indistinguishable from the nanny-state socialism of the Democrats. All too often, in the face of hysterical accusations invoked by liberals to further their cause, the President concurs, giving them undeserved credibility.

Concessions to charges of “racism” in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, along with his tacit legitimization of Bill Bennett’s attackers in yet another contrived controversy, convinced conservatives that the President has no stomach to truly confront and win the “culture war.” So, when asked to “trust the President” on such a crucial matter as the makeup of the nation’s highest court, conservatives are, at best, highly dubious.

Nevertheless, the possibility exists that the Miers nomination constitutes a portion of a grand strategy that, if followed through to its completion, will not only vindicate the President in the eyes of conservatives, but may also redefine the character of the courts and future judicial nominees for years, if not decades, to come. Those skeptical of such a possibility should consider how much the terms of debate have already been changed.

Conservatives are still fuming over the recent Republican capitulation to liberals from both parties, who derailed an attempt to allow the Senate to hold an “up or down” vote on President Bush’s nominations to the Federal bench. With John McCain and Robert Byrd leading the effort, fourteen Senators (seven from each party) collaborated to maintain the filibuster, ostensibly to “protect the Constitution.”

Perhaps the President recognized this latest Supreme Court vacancy not as a chance to continue this senate fight, but rather as the best opportunity to return the courts to their proper role.

Almost without being noticed, the Bush Administration has been playing political “jujitsu” with those filibustering Democrats ever since, trumpeting the real protection of the Constitution as the primary responsibility of justices on the nation’s high courts. And nobody has more eloquently asserted this premise than nominee (now Chief Justice) John Roberts himself.

In the face of so much phony sanctimony from Senate Democrats, ostensibly on behalf of the Constitution, who would dare argue this point? And how insipid, empty, intellectually bankrupt, and downright treasonous, do Justices Anthony Kennedy and Stephen Breyer, with their deference to the laws of other nations, and their comparative indifference to the Constitution, now sound in contrast?

Having enshrouded themselves in bogus claims of “protecting the Constitution,” how can Democrats then credibly oppose justices with such a conviction of upholding it? Admittedly, this argument has its limitations. Senators Kennedy and Schumer, in particular, will flaunt their hypocrisy with no regard for the disgrace they regularly bring upon themselves.

Although both Roberts and Miers say the right things regarding the Constitution and the rightful role of Supreme Court Justices, it remains to be seen whether or not they will uphold such principles once they are on the Court. Well before next year’s mid-term elections, both will show true colors by the decisions they render.

Their fidelity to that which they have professed may, more than any other issue, prove to be the determining factor in the outcome of those elections, and many that will follow.