As Arizona Sen. John McCain zeroes in on the Republican nomination for president, he's trying to woo some of the doubting party faithful with the tried-and-true promise to appoint more conservative judges - in the mold of Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Samuel A. Alito Jr. - to the U. S. Supreme Court. That may be reassuring to some, but it isn't to others, like us, who fear that the court's slow race to undercut existing rights could become a stampede.

Granted, whether one thinks the court is upholding or undermining fundamental rights and liberties is a matter of perspective, just as judicial activism and restraint are in the eyes of the beholder.

With many critical and controversial decisions resting on slender 5-4 margins, all it takes is a shift of one or two justices to set - or undo - precedent, good or bad. And although both Chief Justice Roberts and Associate Justice Alito gave lip service to the idea of upholding precedent in their confirmation hearings, neither has been shy about veering off course.

And with Justice Anthony M. Kennedy moving into the center of the court, Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito have joined new majorities that have disapproved of late-term abortions, voluntary efforts to promote racial diversity in public schools and a student's misguided effort to exercise free speech rights.

For those who may not share the McCain-Roberts-Alito judicial philosophy, all may not be lost. The court has rebuffed efforts by the Bush administration to duck responsibility for controlling greenhouse gas emissions and to restrict certain rights of Guantanamo detainees.

But the struggle continues.

The future of the nation's highest court is not always a front-and-center concern for voters trying to decide which presidential candidate to support. But those lifetime appointees usually outlast the White House occupant who nominated them. When the court's membership becomes too heavily weighted in one ideological direction or the other, what the other side hopes for most is balance.