Ed Wheelan thinks so.
The core premise of his article, that "judicial conservatism" has a broader appeal than the political variety (especially in red states), is attractive. We'll have to see if it's true.
I want to emphasize one the unstated premises in his article: the whole nomination process depends primarily on the President. Only the President can nominate; the Senate is at a political disadvantage because it can merely respond. He (or she) that holds the initiative holds the most important power.
Come to think of it, perhaps there is an interesting analogy between the interplay between the President and the Senate on matters of confirmation and the modern practice of judicial review. Anybody else see it?