As special interests eagerly prepare for war over the Supreme Court, the bipartisan applause directed at retiring Justice O’Connor suggests the power of the center in a divided court and a divided country. She is, in many ways, the ultimate swing voter, frustrating ideological absolutists on either side with her thoughtful independence.

As independent voters increasingly voice their disappointment with this Republican Congress and president, now would be a wise time for President Bush to revisit his original campaign pledge to be a “uniter, not a divider” as he searches for a suitable successor to Justice O’Connor and faces the expected resignation of Chief Justice Rehnquist. But with right-wing activists demanding a return on their investment from the White House with an eye toward overturning Roe v. Wade, and left-wing groups urging Democrats to fight virtually any Bush nominee, it appears that we are heading for a long hot summer of partisan fighting on Capitol Hill. All parties have a lot to lose in the backlash that will ensue.

When the last heavily contested Supreme Court nominations occurred in the late 1980s, the word “Internet” did not appear in the dictionary and 24-hour news was in its infancy. In the intervening years, the culture wars have gone digital, and guerilla warfare tactics are combined with big money to pump the partisan wars into the mainstream. After an unusual 11 years of a stable Supreme Court cast, this is the big one, the fight the ideological activists on both sides have been waiting for. The conservative organization Progress for America has pledged to spend upward of $18 million in advocacy advertising in this effort, with liberal groups like MoveOn.org planning to do the same. To put this avalanche of special interest money in perspective, John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon’s 1960 presidential campaigns spent less than $20 million combined.

The first salvos in this war were fired even before Justice O’Connor’s resignation was announced. The politics of pre-emptive strike were unveiled by the right when conservative columnist Robert Novak warned that the appointment of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to an open Supreme Court seat would send the “conservative movement into spasms of fear and loathing.” When the author of a controversial memo on the use of torture in the war on terror is attacked by conservatives for being too moderate on social issues, you know we’re living in strange days.

Another reality check: While conservative activists always complain about the liberal Supreme Court letting them down, it is worth remembering that seven of the nine current Supreme Court justices were nominated by Republican presidents. No one would confuse Justice O’Connor with a liberal, but it is indicative of today’s political environment that she is regarded by many conservatives as not only a disappointment but a betrayal – along with fellow Reagan appointee Anthony Kennedy and George H.W. Bush appointee David Souter. This list of supposed Republican apostates grows longer with perspective: Nixon appointed centrist Harry Blackmun and Eisenhower appointed progressive Republican California Governor Earl Warren. In his weekend radio address, the Democratic minority leader, Harry Reid, used Warren as a model of the kind of justice he hoped Mr. Bush would appoint, while he previously recommended Republican Senators DeWine, of Ohio, and Graham, of South Carolina, as candidates who would receive his support. Another, more plausible option, would be for President Bush to move forward with a characteristic strategy of cosmetic centrism, nominating a conservative woman such as Judge Edith Hollan Jones and a conservative Hispanic Judge such as Emilio Garza, both Texans whom his father almost nominated to the bench 12 years ago. These appointees would be difficult for the Democrats to effectively block while satisfying many conservative critics.

Behind all these drumbeats lies the so-called nuclear option that was avoided last month by a bipartisan compromise by centrist senators known as the Gang of 14. That was pre-game compared to the special interest Super Bowl we are about to see unfold. The stakes are far higher, and the White House should remember that there is another way to approach the coming conflict. President Clinton managed to receive more than 90 votes for his two Supreme Court picks – Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer – by consulting with the Republican Judiciary leader, Orin Hatch, in advance, though it is questionable whether such civility – however strained – is possible in today’s congressional environment.

There are real costs for Republicans in inviting an ideological fight – the country is currently center-right, but it is not far right – and there is every sign of a backlash brewing. Only 31% of independents say Congress is in touch with their concerns, according to a June 14-15 Fox News/Opinion Dynamics Poll, while a recent Gallup Poll states that 67% of independents think Mr. Bush will appoint a Supreme Court justice whose religious beliefs will inappropriately influence judicial rulings. A current BusinessWeek editorial titled “Independents Are Having Buyer’s Remorse” states, “The swing voter stampede started after the extraordinary intervention by Bush and the GOP Congress in the Terri Schiavo case. Now socially moderate independents – who strongly favor expanded stem cell research and oppose overturning Roe v. Wade – fear that the majority party is in thrall to the Religious Right.”

Perhaps the wisest and most reasoned voice in the process so far might be Mr. Bush himself, who said, “I hope the United States Senate conducts themselves in a way that brings dignity to the process and that the senators don’t listen to the special interest groups, particularly those on the extremes that are trying to exploit this opportunity for not only … what they may think is right but also for their own fund-raising capabilities.” As the fight over the Supreme Court unfolds, we can only hope that the president listens to his own counsel, and nominates a uniter, not a divider.