The U.S. Senate this week gave unanimous consent by voice vote to President George W. Bush’s appointment of Missouri Supreme Court Judge Stephen N. Limbaugh Jr. to the U.S. District Court for Eastern Missouri.

Given that Senate Democrats and the Republican president have been feuding over judicial appointments, and given that Judge Limbaugh built a generally conservative record in 16 years on the state Supreme Court, and given that he is the cousin of a certain outspoken radio host, why was there no dissent?

Perhaps it’s because Stephen N. Limbaugh Jr., 56 — like his father, Senior U.S. District Court Judge Stephen N. Limbaugh, Sr., 80 — is a highly regarded jurist whose scholarship, temperament and demeanor are beyond reproach. Indeed, the senior Stephen Limbaugh and his father, the late (and original) Rush Limbaugh of Cape Girardeau, both proudly served as president of the Missouri Bar.

All of which suggests some irony: When Judge Limbaugh Jr. steps up to the federal bench, Gov. Matt Blunt will appoint his successor on the state Supreme Court. And the Republican governor and some of his conservative supporters are fierce critics of the Missouri Bar’s influential role in the selection of judicial nominees.

Last summer, after a 5-2 Supreme Court decision (Judge Limbaugh dissented) that said public employees have the right to bargain collectively, Gov. Blunt criticized “judicial activism” and lack of political accountability on the court. Business interests and some conservative organizations began funding efforts to supposedly reform the Missouri Non-Partisan Courts Plan.

The “Missouri Plan,” which has become a national model for the merit selection of judges, was adopted in 1940 to take politics out of selection of judges for the Supreme Court, the state’s three courts of appeal and judicial circuits in urban areas.

At issue last summer was the selection of a successor for Supreme Court Judge Ronnie White, who retired to enter private practice. Under the Missouri Plan, a special seven-member Appellate Judicial Commission reviews applicants for the positions and sends three names to the governor.

The commission is headed by the chief justice of the Supreme Court and includes three members appointed by the Missouri Bar. The other three members are appointed by the governor for staggered terms of six years. Mr. Blunt, elected in 2004, has appointed only one member of the commission; the others were appointed by his Democratic predecessor, Bob Holden.

Critics of the plan say that it gives too much clout to lawyers and lacks political accountability. Further, they complain that the winnowing process of applicants occurs in secret, with only the names of the three finalists made public.

Mr. Blunt insisted that each of the three finalists fill out a nine-page, 111-question form that delved into their background, education and judicial philosophy. Some of the governor’s staffers (now former staffers) made repeated demands for more information from Chief Justice Laura Denvir Stith and the judicial commission. And some Republicans in the Legislature introduced bills to alter the Missouri Plan in ways that would subject judges to more political pressure — pressure from which they largely are protected under the Missouri Plan.

Ultimately, these efforts failed. The Missouri House rejected a bill that would have made modest changes to the non-partisan courts plan, with 20 Republicans voting with Democrats against it. Members of the state bar — Republicans and Democrats alike — lobbied against it. Although the existing court plan is not perfect, it does keep judges free from most political pressures. Supreme Court judges come up for retention votes after one year on the bench, but they usually don’t face well-financed opposition from special interest groups. If retained, they serve 12-year terms.

The Missouri Plan has given the state conservative Supreme Court judges (such as Stephen Limbaugh Jr. and William Ray Price Jr.) and liberal judges (such as Michael A. Wolff and Richard B. Teitelman). Whatever their particular judicial philosophies, these jurists have this in common: They are eminently qualified and proudly independent. What’s not to like?