In less than a week, we have witnessed the death then resurrection of President Bush at the hands of ultraconservatives during his attempt to replace a retiring Supreme Court justice.

Having claimed a decisive role in Bush's re-election, members of the far right now want their due - a justice that will carry their ideological agenda onto the bench. Harriet Miers did not give them appropriate assurances, but they seem satisfied that a true believer, Samuel Alito, has taken her place. Publicly, they are careful to disguise this plan beneath constitutional rhetoric. They use terms such as "strict constructionist" and "restrained" jurist, but this group cares about outcome, not judicial philosophy.

The Rehnquist Court might be the most "activist" in U.S. history, having overturned all or part of more than three dozen federal statutes in the past 10 years. The two most conservative, allegedly restrained, justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas - have backed these decisions most of the time.

A jurist who seeks to overturn long-standing precedent because he or she disagrees with the decision is clearly an activist. This is precisely what the far right is seeking. While Roe v. Wade is an obvious target, the group also wants judges to strike down a great deal of federal legislation dealing with discrimination, health and safety, and corporate regulations, thereby negating decades of legal precedent.

Then there is the all-encompassing plea for "strict constructionists." Since 1789, our brightest legal scholars and American historians have argued about the Constitution's "real meaning." Nevertheless, a few individuals believe that only they know what the Founders intended.

Justice William Brennan described this attitude as simply "arrogance cloaked as humility." And is the Constitution cast in stone? Thomas Jefferson suggested chucking the document every 19 years so succeeding generations could write their own; James Madison was a bit more circumspect, yet in The Federalist Paper, No. 14, he wrote, "Is it not the glory of the people of America that ... they have not suffered a blind veneration for antiquity ... to overrule the suggestions of their own good sense?"

Alito is being touted as a judicially restrained strict constructionist. This tells us little. Alito's opinions must be carefully examined. He should be questioned about critical legal issues well beyond the important "right to privacy." Alito must discuss his dissenting opinions that "place the hurdle ... higher than necessary" for parties seeking judicial relief, as the high court expressed when rejecting one of his positions.

Though not as newsworthy as the abortion debate, these rulings frequently challenge rules, standards and recognized precedent in a way that restricts individual plaintiffs and the right to regulate corporations, while protecting the government and business interests.

Justice William Rehnquist was known for years as the "Lone Ranger" for his many solitary dissents. Yet he lived to see the day when a number of these arguments became the majority view. Ultraconservatives hope that such "activist" persistence by Alito will produce similar results.

While I strongly disagree with some of Alito's opinions, I will not oppose his nomination based on decisions guided by honest, rigorous judicial reasoning. If, however, the confirmation process reveals a nominee who would ignore generations of judicial precedent and use the bench to solidify a political agenda, then this person should not be confirmed by the Senate.

The U.S. Constitution protects more than the president and his partisan cohorts. Our Supreme Court must do the same.

Catherine Crier, a former Texas judge, is Court TV host and author of Contempt - How the Right is Wronging American Justice.

Commentary:
Why aren't democrats hitting the GOP for their support of activist judges and their hypocrisy?

Here's who it works. If republicans wanted to ban abortions they could have passed a law doing so the very first year they took control of both houses of congress. They didn't. Instead they want the Courts to do their dirty work. Democrats can easily destroy any GOP talking point but first they have to try.