Conservative activists make a compelling case for what they call the constitutional option and what others are trying to demonize as the nuclear option. It is, indeed, outrageous that Democrats are using the filibuster to prevent President Bush’s judicial nominees from coming to a vote in the Senate.

Historically, the filibuster, which requires 60 votes to overcome, was used to slow down or block legislation that a solid minority believed was unwise. This is consistent with the clear intention of the Framers that the Senate should be the body that resists passing enthusiasms and the pressure of the mob. But using the device to block the Senate’s constitutional obligation to “advise and consent” on a president’s nominations was never the intention. The Constitution provides for impeachment as a corrective to errant appointments.

Moreover, the filibuster is simply a Senate procedural rule, which has been changed in the past (to 60 votes from 67 votes in 1975, for example). There should be nothing particularly scary in principle about changing a mere Senate rule.

That said, Republicans might be smart to resist the temptation to slap down the Democrats right now. For most voters, the battle over judicial nominations is so far a distant welter of claims and counterclaims. They know little about the candidates themselves. And Democrats are likely to have some success portraying an override of the filibuster as some sort of breach in the protection of minority rights.

More important, Republicans could be missing a political bet if they act precipitously. Perhaps the most astonishing result of the 2004 election was not the re-election of a war president, but the dis-election of Democratic Senate leader Tom Daschle of South Dakota. Mr. Daschle was tarred as an obstructionist on judicial appointments and other issues. By forcing Democrats to continue filibustering, Republicans have a chance to create more Daschles in 2006.

Indeed, instead of bypassing the filibuster – a precedent that is sure to come back to haunt conservatives – Republicans ought to restore the rule that filibusterers must actually filibuster. In the old days, this required the obstructionist party to man the Senate floor around the clock, speaking about something – anything – in order to prevent a vote. Nowadays, the filibustering would be on TV every night, requiring Democrats to explain why presidential nominees rated well qualified by the American Bar Association don’t even deserve an up-or-down vote.

This would expose the fatal weakness in the Democratic argument: that the Bush nominees should be resisted on philosophical grounds because they are somehow “too extreme” to be trusted with office.

In fact, most of the nominees already hold office of one sort or another. Several have been elected to those offices, suggesting that actual voters didn’t find them too extreme. Moreover, they have been nominated by and reflect the view of the one person, the president of the United States, who is subject to approval of all the people.

If the nominees are too extreme, then so is the president – and by extension, so are the American people themselves. Such an absurdity couldn’t long stand the light of day – or even the light of a filibuster. Democrats are in the impossible position of trying to deny the results of an election. This makes them the real extremists, or if you will, the political fundamentalists.

The 2006 elections aren’t so far off that Republicans can’t afford to wait, even if one or two ailing Supreme Court justices step down. Indeed, a few unfilled seats on the high court would simply worsen the political predicament for Democrats and ensure the Republican grip on the moral high ground. It is Democrats who will be seen as refusing to play by the rules to the detriment of orderly government.

It’s not entirely clear that Republicans have the votes to change the filibuster rule right now. But even if they do, they might only succeed in winning a few judicial battles while losing the broader political war. At the very least, Republicans should wait to use the constitutional/nuclear option until they are sure the American people fully comprehend the issues.

Mr.Bray is a Detroit News columnist.