The blurry line between "judicial" and "political"

One of the on-going stories that continues to grab headlines on the U.S. political front is the fate of Bush's judicial nominees. There have already been many twists and turns as Republicans and Democrats have navigated (not smoothly, I might add) through the threats of filibusters and "nuclear options" (overriding filibusters) to finally come to some sort of "compromise" (which ended up smelling a lot more like capitulation on the part of the Republicans).

There is already plenty of good analysis and commentary from the usual suspects - see these posts for some good background, commentary, and reaction.

Some Deal - Powerline
Filibuster-o-rama and Let them talk (and talk and talk) - Glennreynolds.com (of Instapundit)
Deconstructing the deal - Captain's Quarters
Two Editorials, Two Directions, and a Significant Abstention - Captain's Quarters
Senate Moderates Avert Polarizing Filibuster Showdown - (Good roundup) The Moderate Voice
Republicans Buckle - Michelle Malkin

One of the nominees that is at the forefront of this story is California Supreme Court Justice Janice Rogers Brown (who has just been cleared for confirmation by a vote of 65-32). I know that these justices are supposed to appointed to serve in the judicial branch which means that justice and the rule of law should be their primary concern. However, I am not so naive as to think that judicial nominees are not "political" agents in that they will always reflect a bias towards some side of the political spectrum. Still, the nasty tone of the debate that has raged over Bush's judicial nominees has once again shown that politics tends to trump judicial sensibilities, especially on the Left side of the spectrum (my opinion, of course).

One of the reasons that Democrats and Left-leaners have so actively opposed Bush's nominees (especially Justice Brown) is the view that they are very "activist" judges who use their judicial authority to "legislate" policies and laws. They view this (in theory, rightly so) as a dangerous blurring of the line between the legislative and judicial branches of government. Strictly speaking, justices should only interpret the laws while legislators make them.
Well, this interesting post at Powerline and this excellent entry at National Review Online's Bench Memos demonstrate just how biased and political these processes are. Powerline's post on Justice Brown shows that Justice Brown is a thoughtful and intelligent figure who seems to understand the role of a justice - a far cry from the right-wing monster the media seems to make her out to be. On the other hand, Edward Whelan's "name the nominee" game cleverly shows that Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg (Clinton Supreme Court appointee who was confirmed by an overwhelming 96-3), may not be the "objective" interpreter of laws and voice of reason that her supporters on the Left would want us to believe.

To add insult to injury, the 96-3 confirmation of Ginsburg doesn't seem to jive with the MSM's and Democrat's contention that the recent Democratic filibusters and "hardball" tactics are only a coninuation of the same games the Republicans played with Clinton's nominees.

In the end, it's clear that there is something at work in this process besides "judicial" trackrecords and sensibilities. It smells a lot like "politics" to me.