I wouldn't put your chips on the table just yet.
That's a relief. Because they aren't your chips to gamble.
I'm calling my GOP Senators and leaving a short message. Judical nominations represent my line in the sand. Stealth nominations are unacceptable. I am interested in advancing conservatism, and stealth nominations are unacceptable, to me.
It happens that my two GOP Senators are of the mind that the Senate gets to help pick the nominee, because the Senate has an "advise" role under the Constitution. So I will say that in that case, I hold them personally responsible (in part) for whether or not the candidate is steal, or overtly conservative, whether the debate is one over stealth, or one over the merits of conservative principle as it plays out in balance of powers.
I will conclude by telling them that if the GOP fails to provide a nominee whose history demonstrably shows judicial restraint, that I work my fingers to the bone to rid the GOP of it country-club, go-along/get-along wing who is unwilling to advance Constitutional principle during the judicial nomination process. I am willing to risk the GOP losing power over this.
In the spirit of the Federalist Society, I encourage you to also call YOUR Senators and leave a message that counters mine. They will figure out that the party is split on this issue, and if the calls are representative, the political process will work out as it should.
I'm not going to bother calling the WH. Mr. Bush done lost my trust with this nomination.