In Washington right now, a debate rages over whether America will retain the independent judiciary crucial to our democracy.

Over the past few years, President Bush and the Republican Congress have been at odds with federal judges. For instance, one judge recently overturned the president’s ability to hold terror suspects indefinitely without charging them; another allowed Terri Schiavo’s feeding tube to be removed. In return, many Republicans have railed against such decisions as “judicial activism” and bemoaned what they see as “legislating from the bench.” Popular televangelist Pat Robertson claimed on Sunday that federal judges are a greater threat to America than Nazi Germany was.

As a matter of fact, the judges in both cases were acting in accordance with the law.

Consequently, Republican lawmakers are threatening to change the Senate’s rules so they can install the far right-wing judges that they and the president want; they propose to do so by eliminating a senatorial procedure known as the filibuster. Not content with the 198 judges that Bush has already appointed, Republican leaders are threatening to use the so-called “nuclear option” to force through the seven judicial nominees that Democrats have blocked by using the threat of filibuster.

The “nuclear option” – which many Republican lawmakers have hastily taken to calling the “Constitutional option” in recent days, because it makes them look less like power-mad crazies – would eliminate the ability of the Democrats to interrupt the Senate’s business and force bipartisan compromise. Essentially, once the filibuster is gone, the minority party in the Senate will have no power, turning the Senate into a rubber stamp for the majority party, be they Democrat or Republican.

It doesn’t even matter whether President Bush’s judicial nominees are extremists or upstanding jurists; the issue at stake is one of fundamental political philosophy: Are the rights of the minority in this country to be protected from what James Madison called “the tyranny of the majority?” That’s why we have a Bill of Rights. That’s why we have separation of powers. Eliminating the filibuster will upset the checks and balances enshrined in our Constitution, and could come back to haunt Republicans tenfold if the Democrats are in a vengeful mood when they someday regain control of the Senate.

Not only must the filibuster be protected, but it’s time to call these charges of “judicial activism” what they really are – political opportunism masquerading as righteous indignation. In an effort to increase their own power, the Republican leadership is threatening the civility of the Senate, which is crucial for achieving the compromises that benefit everyone.

In Federalist paper No. 78, Alexander Hamilton argued that the judiciary needed to be independent and free from political constraint by Congress or the president. In his words, “This independence of the judges is equally requisite to guard the Constitution and the rights of individuals.” We do not need ideologues on the bench. That’s why a small percentage of Bush’s, Clinton’s and Reagan’s judges were blocked by the opposition parties. The process works to produce judges that reflect the broad range of opinion that exists within our country, instead of packing the courts with the president’s yes-men.

If the so-called “nuclear option” is exercised, the result would be to eviscerate senatorial debate and unbalance the federal courts, demolishing two vital pillars of our republic.

Columns reflect the opinion of the author and not necessarily that of the Northern Star staff.