He's feinted a couple of times before, but word has it that this is the week when Senate Republican Leader Bill Frist intends to start pushing a highly controversial U.S. Court of Appeals nomination and, if he can get 50 votes, invoke the so-called "nuclear option" of outlawing any filibuster for present or future judicial confirmations.

It's a really bad idea, and not only because Democrats have promised to retaliate by withholding their consent from non-essential Senate business for the rest of the year. We've already made our opposition to the nuclear option known. Like most progressives, we aren't big fans of the filibuster generally, and also think presidents should receive considerable deference in appointments to the lower courts. But the Republican demand to outlaw filibusters of judicial nominations altogether would eliminate one of the few tools available to legislative minorities to balance the power of majorities, at a time when the Republican majority in Washington is pursuing a pattern of irresponsible and polarizing behavior on a broad array of issues. Moreover, it's clear the pursuit of the nuclear option is attributable to demands from the cultural warriors of the Right to pave the way for a conservative activist Supreme Court.

But the fight over judges need not "go nuclear." While negotiations between Frist and Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid have broken down, a group of a dozen Republican and Democratic Senators are working on a deal in which the Democrats would agree to vote for cloture on most of the Court of Appeals appointees, while enough Republicans would pledge to vote against the nuclear option to guarantee its defeat.

It sounds like a good deal for Democrats, and for the country. It's not at all clear Frist can get the votes to go nuclear, but the consequences if he does are sufficiently serious that Democrats should try to get it off the table if they can without sacrificing some leverage over Bush's future appointments. And that means rejecting the advice of some liberal interest groups that they continue to block all or most of Bush's Court of Appeals nominees and invite the nuclear option.

In our judgment, and that of most legal analysts, only a few of Bush's Court of Appeals nominees are really objectionable. Risking leverage over future Supreme Court nominees by blocking the less objectionable lower court nominees would be a mistake that plays directly into the Right's strategy to make this an all-or-nothing partisan fight. On this and other issues, Democrats must be smart enough to meet polarization with something more compelling than counter-polarization.

A clear Democratic willingness to be reasonable on judges will not only defuse this contrived crisis, but will also force Republicans to either live up to their responsibilities as a governing party or expose the power of extremists in their ranks.