Some might perceive a contradiction-in-terms in the claim that an appointment to the United States Supreme Court demands, or even permits, a political campaign. However, where there is a choice--a judgment identifying the preference for one proposition, or one person, over another--there is politics, there is rhetoric, and there is an ethical dimension. When such a choice demands the exercise of collective action by numbers of people, reasons must be offered--good, bad, or indifferent; past performance must and will be investigated; and predictions of capabilities and future performance must be made. Such was the case when President Ronald Reagan nominated Robert H. Bork to the Supreme Court. Several factors must come into consideration in an analysis of the campaign communications that occurred during Bork's confirmation hearings. Whether rejection or confirmation can be based on judicial philosophy or solely on ethics and competence; at what point the politicization of judicial nominees occurs; and how individual senators determined they would vote are all elements that need to be evaluated. With the acceptance of the notion that neither presidential nomination nor United States Senate consent is without political appraisal of the judicial philosophy of the nominee, the American public will gain the political maturity to realize that in every choice there is rhetoric, ethics, and politics. (Twenty-eight notes are included.) (MS)