How can you not confirm him?

So I am a Wisconsin voter and have been for nearly four years now. In fact, I have never cast a ballot in any other state in my life. So I consider Russ Feingold and Herb Kohl to be my senators, especially having seen the former man's name on the ballot just last year.

As such, I would like some answers. Could either man please explain, without using the word “conservative,” why they are even contemplating voting against Judge Samuel Alito?

Bill Christofferson over at The Xoff Files is calling on both men to vote against the nominee:

Wisconsin is in the unusual position of having both of its Senators on the Judiciary Committee, which will vote on the nomination of Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court. Both should be voting no.

And, sadly, Mr. Christofferson doesn't seem to be in a totally delusional fantasy land, as he quotes a Journal Sentinel article speculating on the issue:

Senate Democrats Herb Kohl and Russ Feingold both said Thursday that they came away from Judge Samuel Alito's four days of testimony with concerns and unanswered questions about his nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Frankly, though, I am confused. How can they claim that Mr. Alito has left them with unanswered questions? This guy answered everything – so much so that senate Democrats were forced to stop asking! Compare Mr. Alito's performance to that of Ruth Bader Ginsburg – she barely answered any questions, practically coining the dodge-and-weave tactic. And yet the vast majority of senate Republicans – not to mention all of the Democrats who have now turned to utter hypocrisy – voted for her.

Then again, Ann Althouse offers an interesting view on why Mr. Feingold in particular may vote in the negative:

I am especially interested to see how Feingold will vote, because I assume he is running for President. Hillary Clinton has already voted against Roberts, so I expect her to vote against Alito. Feingold has already distinguished himself from her, and I'm sure if he wants, he can give excellent reasons for distinguishing Roberts from Alito, and a combination of yes and no votes might serve him well, making him seem to be evaluating the judges in a fair, nonideological manner.

In the end, though, Ms. Althouse has it right:

Nevertheless, I think Alito deserves a yes vote. To vote no based on his performance at the hearings is to set the expectations too high for the next nominee. We need to worry that good people will decline to be nominated. And Democrats will some day have the power of appointment again. Their treatment of Alito will serve as an example to Republicans as to how far they can go in attacking that new nominee.