Apologists for voting yes -- no offense, folks, that's just the best word I can come up with -- are saying that Dems should support Roberts because it will give them currency to threaten a filibuster over the next Supreme Clown Posse nominee.

I reject this argument out of hand. The Reeps have very effectively demonstrated that cooperation and compromise are four-letter words in their opinion. There is no reason to expect that support for Roberts will make the Reeps susceptible to reason in the future. On the contrary, Reeps will use Dem support for Roberts as "proof" that the administration gives good judge and Gee-Dub's future nominations shouldn't be questioned.

At the same time, the apologists are arguing that if the Dems go too far, they run the risk of being seen as "obstructionist." This is also true. The thing is, I don't know who the heck they're talking to.

Reid has said he'll vote no. He hasn't said "filibuster" yet, has he? Not to put too fine a point on it, but if every Dem in the Senate votes no, Roberts still gets in. Obstructionism means holding up the process, not participating in it.

So stop already with this idiotic argument. There are more than two options.

My advice to the Dems in the Senate is this:

• Publicly announce that you are voting against the appointment of this career Reep political operative.

• Predict that he will use the position to promote the Reep political agenda.

• Point out that the administration that nominated him has asked the Court to severely roll back American freedoms.

• Follow that up by underscoring the fact that Roberts has made a career out of concocting legal arguments supporting the Reep political agenda.

Then, graciously declare that although Roberts is the wrong man for the job, and likely to politicize the judiciary in a way none of his predecessors have, in the interest of national unity, we have decided not to filibuster.

Announce that we will be watching Roberts closely, to ensure that he carries out his duties -- which he is more than qualified to do -- without a partisan or ideological agenda influencing his actions.

By opposing his confirmation on the grounds that he is a partisan judicial activist, but declining to block it for the sake of national unity, the Dems can frame Roberts in a way that will allow them to go back and criticize his actions once he's appointed. At the same time, Dems who take this road also get to frame themselves as the ones rising above partisan bickering by not using procedural tactics to oppose a very bad candidate.

Capitulation now, on the other hand, will make him a double-weight millstone around the neck of the Dem party, as Roberts' judicial activism and Dem support for his confirmation team up to drag us down.