One of the favorite arguments being thrown around by conservatives as to why the democrats have no reason to be critical of the Alito nomination is because they already approved him for his appellate judgeship.

"But it's a little hard to describe circumstances as "extraordinary" - or to condemn a nominee as somehow extreme or bizarre - when you yourselves [democrats] voted unanimously to confirm him to the nation's second-highest courts."
- David Frum, 11/01/05

"The guy [Alito] was unanimously approved for the federal appellate bench by a Democratic Senate, for heaven‘s sakes. The ABA gave him its highest rating when he went up there. "
- Pat Buchanan 10/31/05

So I guess fifteen years of judicial rulings and opinions should be ignored when evaluating whether a sitting judge has been faithful to the constitution. I guess the record of his actual on-the-job performance as a judge, which did not exist the first time his nomination was approved, should not be considered when determining if a judge should be elevated to the nations highest and most important judicial appointment. The conservatives want it both ways. They point to Alito's qualifications and vast judicial experience as a reason the democrats cannot oppose him, and then they want the democrats to ignore his vast paper trail of rulings and treat Alito as if he were the same man he was fifteen years ago. His confirmation fifteen years ago, to his first judicial appointment, has almost no bearing on evaluating his fitness to be on the Supreme Court.