Let the games begin. After President Bush’s primetime announcement of his pick to replace Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, partisans on both sides of the fence are gearing up for a major fight over Judge John Roberts.

But what we’d like to see is an honest, fair investigation into the judge’s background, qualifications and views.

Roberts’ nomination came after a day of hot and heavy speculation, most of which guessed that New Orleans Judge Edith Clement was in line for the seat. (The source for most of that speculation? First Lady Laura Bush mentioned last week she’d like to see a woman take the spot.) Regardless, we certainly can’t rely on the Washington rumor mill for information about Roberts.

Replacing O’Connor makes for perhaps the most contentious pick because she was considered the main &uot;swing vote&uot; &045; a conservative who grew more moderate in her time on the court.

But in the years since O’Connor took her place on the nation’s highest court, we’ve seen America become even more politically polarized &045; or at least we’ve seen the ideological minorities on both sides become much more shrill. That’s led to a dangerous practice in many judicial confirmations &045; relying on partisan clichs to tear down a candidate until he or she is barely recognizable.

Roberts, to be sure, has little on which to be tested &045; he has only been a judge for two years. But as a lawyer he has argued dozens of cases before the Supreme Court, and is widely regarded in many circles for his brilliant mind, his fairness and his honesty.

Such characteristics demand that he &045; and anyone else in this process &045; be treated with respect and fairness.

Senators need to give this process the dignity it deserves.