This Slate writer makes a few good points. But I don't think that 1) Senate Democrats will listen, or 2) she gives them any useful political or jurisprudential advice.
Once you've conceded that members of the Fed Soc are not bigots or even closet bigots, then one must find another politically sexy vehicle of attack. What? No clue. Abortion is not really a clear winner (less and less so...) and most liberal jurisprudential positions are unpopular political losers: expansive view of Court powers; facile redefinition of constitutional terms (for instance using foreign law); social engineering from the bench.
And intellectual opposition to originalism and judicial restraint is increasingly scarce: how will Democrats put into action her suggestion to address the implications of federalist jurisprudence?
Suggestion: give up and, with wise heads such as Akhil Amar, join the debate.