If only that were true. I'm somewhat disappointed in the pick. Yes, he's got a fine mind and he is conservative. He's a charmer and will be hard for the rats to slime. All good.
But there is NO evidence that he will be a Thomas or a Scalia. From what I can see, he's an incrementalist and is unlikely to lead the Court significantly more rightward than O'Conner. I'm pretty confident that on social issues, he will replace O'Connner as a swing vote, although he may come out right more often than O'Conner. This improves the Court a little; but is not going to contribute the revolution in jurisprudence that is needed to move the Court back from 70 years of abuse of the constitution.
That he will be so easily confirmed validates this conclusion. He's about as good as the dems could have reasonably hoped for and, from their perspective, it could have been a whole lot worse. From my perspective, it should have been a whole lot better.
Maybe he will grow into a more originalist position. Sigh . . .
I think Roberts will be surprisingly good and it seems like Schumer and Leahy are setting the table for the filibuster. Get ready for a brawl!