The talk in all the media these days is about Bush's third Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito. As we learn more about Alito, it is clear that his ideology runs to the extreme right. He explicitly asserted an anti-abortion right position in 1985. His views tend to be to the right of even the conservative members of his current court. He would undoubtedly move the Supreme Court to the right, in decisions dealing with fundamental issues of extreme importance to the country at this time. It appears clear that corporatist viewpoints would be furthered; individual rights (other than property rights) would be whittled away.
The right-wing is claiming that it would be inappropriate to consider his ideology in making the decision to confirm. This claim is almost laughable in the context of their consideration of Harriet Miers, who was rejected by them primarily on ideological grounds as not being conservative enough. Remember that Harriet Miers was also pressured to withdraw her naming, demonstrating that the commitment to an "up or down" vote applies only to those candidates that the right-wing already has decided will get an up vote.
Even during the Roberts confirmation process, the right-wing talk was busy bringing up Ruth Bader Ginsburg's nomination as an example of the Republican's willingness to confirm any Democratic president's nominee. To hear them tell it, Justice Ginsburg's confirmation came even though Republicans considered her an extremist on the left. This "Ginsburg Fallacy" was brought up again on the night of Alito's confirmation, by Sean Hannity. The facts, however, are otherwise. Ginsburg was--and is--a centrist whose selection was pushed by Republicans. See the Washington Post account, here.
Let's hope the rest of the media take guidance from the Post's approach. They should set the record straight rather than permitting the right-wing to spin the American people a yarn yet one more time.