THE SENATE Judiciary Committee acted on two stalled judicial nominations this week -- a good-faith gesture by Democrats who are about to lose control of the chamber in January and are worried that their perceived obstinacy on this issue won't help them in polls or at the ballot box.

Cooperation is welcome, and it will be necessary for Democrats in a government that's split but decidedly in GOP control.

However, one of this week's approvals offers a lesson for Democrats about the importance of picking your shots.

The nomination in question this week was that of Dennis Shedd, a South Carolina trial judge who never found for a plaintiff in an employment discrimination case, who only once validated a sexual harassment claim and who once agreed with a lower-court judge's assertion that the Family and Medical Leave Act is unconstitutional.

The problem with Judge Shedd is not that he's conservative; it's that he allows his views to trump established precedents and the rule of law. His rulings have been overturned by higher courts on fundamental issues such as due process and ensuring effective assistance of counsel.

Even worse, he was confirmed to the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals (which covers South Carolina, Maryland and three other states), ensuring that that bench's majority can be even more vigilant in pursuit of a very conservative agenda.

Democrats did not have the votes to defeat Judge Shedd's nomination, but had put off a decision until after midterm elections. The electoral beating they took ensured Democrats couldn't block the nomination indefinitely, so they made good on a promise to bring it to a vote, as proof that they have run the committee fairly. Judge Shedd's confirmation is a costly olive branch for them to have extended. Other Bush nominees might have been more palatable; two who were voted down, Priscilla Owen and Charles Pickering, were conservative judges with records that are not as one-sided as Judge Shedd's.

Over the next two years, the Democrats will have to more carefully deflect the White House's attempts to reshape the courts. That means saving their chits to block nominees who are overtly political, but rolling over to let good judges who just happen to be conservative onto the federal benches.

The truth is that this president, like any other, has a right to nominate judges with whom he agrees for federal posts. But that right stops short of sanctioning a staunch ideological crusade. Balance -- on the courts and among them -- should be part of the White House's goal, too.

Overall, during the 16 months that Democrats controlled the Senate, they were smart about wielding power. The Judiciary Committee approved 100 of the president's 131 judicial nominees, and the full Senate confirmed 80. They brought the number of judicial vacancies down from 110 to 79, setting a better pace than Republicans did when they controlled the Senate previously. All of those nominees presumably fit the White House's bill, but only a handful were as blindly conservative as Judge Shedd.

Now that Democrats are a minority again, they'll have to be even smarter about keeping judges like Judge Shedd from imbalancing America's federal judiciary.