If I had to bet, I think he will be confirmed without a filibuster, but there are major problems with the way judicial conservatives argue their case. First, as I observed here, they argue like lawyers. (See Conor's post on "activism.") But this is not a legal dispute, it is a deeply political one.
The dispute, succintly, is: are we children of the Founding Fathers, or of the 60s?
Conservatives are not using the best of the American political tradition, viz. the Declaration of Independence, to guide their arguments. Indeed, as Richard Reeb has reminded us, Judge Bork regards the Declaration as a source of modern egalitarian mischief, with its talk of “equality.” (See Reeb on George Will.) Conservatives are entering into the battle only partly armed.
