Dianne Feinstein won"t filibuster Alito: "This might be a man I disagree with, but it doesn't mean he shouldn't be on the court." And the Washington Post, in supporting his confirmation, doesn"t think he should be rejected on ideological grounds - although that's precisely why he was nominated : "We would be alarmed if he were denied a seat ... because of his views."
Extremist views and a history of ideologically-based judicial decisions are good enough reasons to appoint someone, but not good enough reasons to oppose him.
Feinstein and the Washington Post are two reasons why we're going to see an extremist judiciary that's increasingly at odds with mainstream American values -- and an electorate that's powerless to resist it, since it has neither an unbiased press to inform it nor an opposition party to fight for it.
Fighting a judge based on his wrong-headed thinking is extreme? Tell that to the 10-year-old girl that got strip-searched, or the black readers who saw the CAP editorial telling them they "don't know their place."
(thanks to Echidne of the Snakes)