During the Clinton impeachment, Republicans harmed themselves enormously when they chose to make their case by delivering long speeches filled with historical accounts and legalisms instead of speaking brief, powerful sentences about Mr. Clinton's serious transgressions. It is never too late, however, to learn from one's mistakes. Here's how Republicans can do just that when the President announces his next Supreme Court nominee.

From the moment the President announces his choice, Republicans should keep faith with the truth of Shakespeare's line that "Brevity is the soul of wit" as they calmly and consistently repeat a three-part message. (This is admittedly a daunting task for politicians but one that offers rewards commensurate with the "sacrifices" it demands.)

Think of it. What will happen if during every news conference, television appearance, and the Senate hearing itself Republicans succinctly praise the nominee's qualifications, briefly emphasize the nominee's belief in the principle of judicial restraint, and pithily wonder aloud how any person who voted for or otherwise supports Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg can disparage the nominee.

What will happen is that the media will react to this provocative tactic, thereby informing the American public that the President's choice is eminently qualified to sit on the court as a justice who believes in interpreting law, not making it. On these two scores, Republicans will win big with a public as fed up with the sliming of highly qualified judicial nominees as it is with Liberal activist judges who have plagued the nation for half a century.

Next, the repeated mentioning of Justice Ginsburg will force the media to comment about her writings, her nomination process, and her judicial service, leaving Democrats with two unenviable choices: remain silent before an increasingly informed nation or explain to that same nation how they can support Ginsburg while opposing the nominee. Because political reality forces the second option, it is worthwhile to look at its implications.

As a result of the attention given to Justice Ginsburg, people will learn that this Clinton nominee who was confirmed with 96 votes served the ACLU for a decade, argued against the fairness of separate prisons for men and women, speculated that the Constitution can be interpreted to guarantee a right to polygamy, and wrote that "Prostitution as a consensual act between adults is arguably within the zone of privacy protected by recent constitutional decisions."

The public will also learn how Ginsburg has brought her radical agenda to the Court: How she joined with other Liberals in ruling that virtual child pornography represents "protected speech" under the First Amendment. How after that decision, she and the same Liberal majority stunningly held that political speech during an election campaign does not constitute "speech" protected by the First Amendment and may therefore be regulated by the government. How, as a card-carrying member of the Liberal Gang of Five, she held that under the doctrine of "public use," the government has the right to take a person's home to turn it over to a private developer.

With those facts receiving national attention, how interesting it will be to hear Senator Biden answer questions about why he didn't apply his tortured statement regarding Justice Scalia to Ginsburg: "After I voted to confirm [Scalia], I vowed never again to vote for anybody who I don't have some sense of their constitutional methodology."  Of course, not only Senator Biden will be confronted with such questions. Media from Washington to Walla Walla will pursue other Democrats to ask whether they find Scalia and the current nominee "extremist" but label Ginsburg "mainstream."

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid will have his opportunity to answer some questions as well. With so much focus on Ginsburg, Reid will be besieged to explain whether he places Justice Ginsburg, for whom he voted, in the same category with Justice Thomas, whom he smeared as "an embarrassment to the Supreme Court." Reporters will shout at him to ask why he believes Ginsburg, unlike Roberts, possesses a "heart" large enough to qualify her for a seat on the Supreme Court. Microphones, including some from Nevada, will demand of him whether Kim Gandy, president of the National Organization for Women, spoke the truth when she commented, "He [Reid] got the message loud and clear, didn't he? [regarding Reid's decision to oppose Roberts]"

As usual, the person most likely to disgrace herself with the worst kind of hypocrisy and deviousness regarding the Ginsburg business is Senator Hillary Clinton. Indeed, what a tawdry show we can expect as Mrs. Clinton expediently decides what to say about Justice Ginsburg. Will she proudly defend the Liberal position regarding Ginsburg's writings and judicial decisions? Will she honestly discuss her intellectual kinship with Ginsburg and other politics-at-any-price Leftist feminist radicals who care infinitely more about gaining power over the people of "the village" than they do about equity and decency for women? Or will she remind the nation once again that being Hillary means denying any friend, betraying any principle, or lying any lie to advance a life-long pursuit of power?

Yes, from advancing the cause of their nominee to promoting a vitally important national discourse about the role of the judiciary, Republicans can achieve much by recognizing that brevity is the soul of wit. The risks in doing so are virtually nil; the rewards are great; and thus the time for Republicans to keep their wits about them as they speak with thoughtful brevity is now.

Copyright by A.J. DiCintio