WASHINGTON – Many Republicans have thrown up alarms at the (now likely) confirmation of Elena Kagan as a Supreme Court nominee because she is sure to indulge in “liberal judicial activism.”

Sounds nasty, but what is judicial activism? There’s no universal agreement, but in general what folks mean by “liberal judicial activism” is insufficient deference to the political branches of government (Congress, the White House, statehouses) and a willingness to overturn the precedent of already decided Supreme Court cases.

What, then, would you call the recent 5-4 ruling that overturned a law adopted by Congress to limit some campaign spending? Or the reversal of years of Supreme Court precedent involving gun ownership?

And, my goodness, what about the court’s 2000 decision in the Bush vs. Gore election? That was certainly activism at its most robust.

Might these be examples of co

nservative judicial activism?

It is widely believed that there is a 5-4 conservative-liberal split on the Supreme Court and that Kagan would fill one of the “liberal” slots. However, in the most recently completed Supreme Court term, most cases were decided 9-0.

Nonetheless, many Republicans are basing their opposition to Kagan on her supposed inclination toward activism from the bench. Given that she is nominated by a Democratic president, that activism must, naturally, be liberal.

None of these fellas (they all are) opposed any of President Bush’s nominees on the basis that they would almost certainly dabble on “conservative judicial activism.”

Clearly, if you are looking for judicial activism, you will find it if you disagree with the outcome of a ruling. The rulings you agree with were decided properly (and did not involve activism), and the rulings that set your teeth on edge were arrived at purely on the basis of ideology gone amok.

An intellectually honest person will acknowledge this and perhaps then ask: Is there a better basis for evaluating a Supreme Court nominee than on whether he or she is likely to be an activist – given that, as a Republican, I am unlikely to agree with a Democratic president’s nominee on controversial cases? (And vice versa for a Democrat and a Republican president’s nominees.)

Sen. Richard Lugar has an idea: Look at a nominee’s qualifications, experience and judgment. Set aside the personal political perspective of the nominee.

It was a view once shared widely in the Senate.

In fact, when Dan Coats was a senator 17 years ago, he supported President Clinton’s nomination of Ruth Bader Ginsburg. At the time, Coats said the criteria for evaluating a president’s Supreme Court nominee have “to be character, experience, qualifications and intelligence – not politics. ... Ruth Bader Ginsburg meets these criteria.”

In 1993, most of the Senate agreed with Coats (and Lugar). Ginsburg was confirmed 96-3.

But times have changed.

During the GOP Senate primary, Coats said he made a mistake in voting for Ginsburg in 1993. He said since then, Democrats have “trashed” Republican Supreme Court nominees, so “all of that has changed.”

Coats is correct, in large measure, that Democrats started the judicial flame-throwing. By their actions in the Robert Bork hearings, Democratic senators so angered Republicans that character, experience, qualifications and intelligence as criteria were replaced by the very thing Coats said should not be a factor: politics.

Alas, few in the Senate are now willing to insist that the older standard serves the country better. Among Republicans, Lugar is one of those few.

Lugar has not always supported a Democratic president’s Supreme Court nominees. Lugar found Clinton’s choice of Stephen Breyer so troubling that he launched a very energetic and very public campaign to block the confirmation.

Lugar’s objections rested in what he considered Breyer’s “extraordinarily bad judgment”: investing in a troubled Lloyd’s of London syndicate and the potential for encountering conflicts of interest in cases before the court. What Lugar did not object to was Breyer’s political perspective.

But, as I said, times have changed. There’s a strata of the voting pubic that firmly believes Supreme Court nominees should be chosen (and confirmed or rejected by the Senate) based on the person’s ideology and willingness to impose that ideology – law and precedent be damned.

These are the folks who find Lugar’s (and Coats’ former) approach wrong and dangerous. Some have gone so far to publicly warn: “Mr. Lugar, prepare for your pink slip.”

Evaluating Supreme Court nominees solely on the political party of the president who nominated them is wrong, but it has the appeal of efficiency.

No Republican senator need meet, question or evaluate the nominee of a Democratic president. Just vote no because any choice of a Democrat must be, by definition, a “liberal judicial activist.” And no Democrat need spend any time weighing the qualifications of a Republican president’s Supreme Court choice. The “no” vote is automatic.