A year ago today the so-called "Gang of 14" cooked up a compromise on Bush's judicial nominations that would supposedly moderate the process. In short, Republicans would not institute the "nuclear option" and the Democrats generally would not filibuster Bush nominees.

At least partially on the basis of this deal President Bush was able to place two fierce conservatives on the Court, at least one of whom (Samuel Alito) might not have had the votes for cloture had not the "nuclear option" still been on the table. One of the key Republican rationales for beating the Democrats into submission over the Alito nomination was that while he is a conservative, he is properly suited for the Court; the American Bar Association said as much, rating Alito well-qualified -- a fact that Republican Senators oft quoted.

Just a few short months later and Senate Republicans have changed their tune on judicial nominations. Currently, the GOP is in a struggle to gin up the culture war in a hope to win back the conservative base; they've admitted as much. As a part of this effort, President Bush and Senate Majority Leader Frist are trying to push through a number of extreme conservatives on to the federal bench. One problem for the GOP, however, is that unlike even Samuel Alito, these new nominees don't even have the gravitas necessary for the position, as Jonathan Allen reports today for The Hill.

The American Bar Association (ABA) recently rated [5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals nominee Michael] Wallace, a Mississippi lawyer and former aide to Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.), "not qualified," spawning a new round of questions from Republican stalwarts about the political independence of the influential organization and its leaders. The Wallace rating followed on the heels of a downgrading of D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals nominee Brett Kavanaugh from "well qualified" to "qualified."

Given the fact that the Republicans harped for so long on the ABA's well qualified rating for Samuel Alito during his divisive nomination battle, surely they will respect the ABA's ratings of Wallace and Kavanaugh. Right? Wrong.

"It's just outrageous what the ABA did," Lott said of the Wallace rating, which was issued May 10. He said the organization's ratings panel is stocked with liberals who produced the results they wanted at the outset of the process.

"Who are they to decide who's qualified and who isn't?" Lott asked.

The ABA is not an organization that is quick to issue not qualified ratings. In fact, as Allen notes, it has been more than two decades since such a rating has been handed out for a nominee to an appellate court. What's more, the not qualified rating of Wallace was unanimous, a striking fact given that "the 15-member panel includes at least three Bush donors."

Republicans might pretend that they only want the best people to serve on the highest courts in the country, but clearly all they are out for is to reshape the Judiciary by putting extreme conservative activists on the bench. But the Judiciary is no place for people who care more about politics than law, and the Democrats should do everything they can -- filibuster included -- to ensure that this principle is upheld.