First, I don't feel that the nuclear option is as distasteful as the Professor does. Specifically, the Senate could use some "House-ification". If the most-basic of Senate responsibilities can be derailed by a group well within the minority, then it's high time that extra-Constitutional traditions such as the filibuster go the way of the dodo bird.
Second, I disagree with his analysis with regard to why there aren't "mass filibusters", and indeed, with his assertion that there aren't "mass filibusters", at least at the appellate level. While it is true that a lot of President Bush's nominees have been confirmed, nearly all of them have been at the District Court level (Estrada notwithstanding), and nearly none of them have been at the appellate level. Outside of the DC District Court (because most federal legislation gets challenged there first), the Appellate Courts are far more important than the District Courts because of both their scope and the fact that they're essentially the final word on most of the controversial cases. Morever, the semi-secret "hold", the process where a single Senator, usually in the state where the nominee would be located, prevents any consideration by the Senate of that nominee, further skews the numbers.
I also take issue with his analysis of where the federal judiciary currently is ideologically. Because of 8 solid years of a Democratic President with basically no obstruction by the Republicans, the whole of the federal judiciary is, at best, moderate, with the bulk of the judges that have retired in the last 2 years and retire in the next several fairly described as conservative. If the Republicans continue to remain in the Presidency, the feared "shift to the right" won't happen until 2009, at the earliest, and then only if the Republican Party as a whole makes a turn to the right. If a Democrat sneaks in next year, then it won't be a "shift to the center", rather, it will be a hard (and permanent, in my opinion) turn to the left.
My final, and biggest bone of contention, is the author's desire for "legal formalism". While that sounds good, his explanation of "neoformalist" reads like a liberal's attempt to con conservatives into accepting all of the abuses of the Warren and Burger Courts and indeed, allow for further judicial activism as long as they're consistent with the "logic" put forth by those Courts. Never mind that the liberal mindet, from both a jurist and political standpoint, will never be content with this perverted definition of legal formalism. The Left cannot afford to give up the judiciary as the means to push its politically-unpalatable portion of its agenda.