ULTIMATE REALITY SHOW SUMMER'S BEST TV VIEWING: 'JUSTICE ON TRIAL'.

Byline: Stephanie Becker Local View

NO justice, no peace.

And I say amen to that - speaking solely as a reality-show junkie.

I've been going through withdrawal without my ``Idol'' and ``Bachelor'' and ``Survivor.'' So thank you, Sandra Day O'Connor, for voting yourself off the island - I mean, off the Supreme Court bench. I am sorry to see such a groundbreaking sistah stepping down. After all, she was the first justice to run an aerobics class. Who's gonna overrule her demand for eight more reverse mambo steps? But she has given me hope for summer viewing.

Here I was all bummed out that there wasn't a good knock-down, drag-out, evil-to-the-core TV series to keep me occupied. The Jackson case is over, Robert Blake is on the loose and the search for weapons of mass destruction is so last season. However, this latest turn of events gives me a reason to keep my basic cable. Now I'm looking forward to gavel-to-gavel coverage of the latest installment of the sometimes-riveting ``Senate Judiciary Committee Confirmation Hearings.''

I wonder if I can pre-order a DVD at the Robert Bork hearings discount rate?

The recent John Bolton U.N Ambassador inquisition was merely an ``Average Joe'' limbering up for lawmakers. So what that his employees say Bolton's a mean boss - take a number, join the club, we meet weekdays at 5 p.m. on the 405 northbound.

Rewinding back to the Clarence Thomas hearings seems a better sneak preview of what's in store. Those hearings had all the elements of a good reality show: intrigue, tales of inappropriate behavior, lost tempers, a clearly defined winner that made lots of people mad, and product placement - remember that hairy soda can?

Pundits and politicians decry Americans' lack of interest in our political process. Now, though, with reality being finely honed by people like Mark Burnett and Donald Trump and, bless her heart, Paris Hilton, I say: Senate, take a lesson.

We'd certainly pay more attention if Ted Kennedy would just cut to the chase and say ``You are the weakest link! Goodbye,'' although he probably believes there are much weaker links already on the court.

Maybe Donald Trump could make a special guest appearance to give his trade mark ``You're fired!'' to committee rejects.

And wouldn't it be great if Arlen Specter started clapping his hands in that odd Paula Abdul way - ``You are the best. I absolutely love love love your majority opinion concurring with the lower court ruling on nail-salon lawsuits! But you really need to do something about that robe. Black is soooo over.'' They could bring in Carson from ``Queer Eye'' to spice up the justice's wardrobe, just making sure it didn't clash with William Rehnquist's chief justice epaulets.

Nominees could be winnowed down with a ``Survivor''-like task. Say we put them out on an island, like a Channel Island, and using only their wits and eminent domain, they have to overturn a precedent. And if the senators get a little antsy with nothing to do, break them up into teams.

It'll be more contentious than Roe v. Wade! The Knee-Jerk Liberals (of course in Blue) could challenge the Red State Strict Constructionists to the task of building a consensus without a dissenting opinion.

For the sake of must-see TV, I do so hope that the president nominates someone polarizing - like Ken Starr. On top of a good political food fight, we'd get to rehash all the salacious parts from the Starr Report. Maybe Monica Lewinsky could do color commentary. I'll bet Fox News honcho Roger Ailes is on the phone right now to the White House.

Or maybe President Bush will nominate a compromise candidate, someone who will make everyone happy - except, of course, the all-news cable stations.