Sen. Dick Durbin gets high marks for bringing out Judge Alito's record on civil rights and liberties issues:

Durbin cited rulings in cases involving a black man accused of murder, a retarded man who had been sexually molested and an injury at a coal work site. He said that in each case, Alito had made rulings that favored the powerful at the expense of the powerless. “I find this as a recurring pattern, and it raises the question in my mind whether the average person, the dispossessed person, the poor person who finally has their day in court ... are going to be subject to the crushing hand of fate when it comes to your decisions.”

Sen. Feingold is due praise for questioning Alito on the death penalty:

FEINGOLD: According to two independent studies, your record in death penalty case has been more anti-capital defendant even than most Republican-appointed judges. In fact, in every disputed capital case that you heard -- that is, cases in which a panel of three judges did not all agree -- you would have ruled against the defendant. How do you explain this seeming tendency to favor the government in capital cases?

Alito responds he's voted in favor of some capital defendants and habeas petitioners.

Alito then slip-slides over a question posed twice by Feingold as to whether the court is going in the right direction by paying more attention to issues such as inadequacy of counsel in death cases. Then, there is this exchange:

FEINGOLD: Justice Stevens recently gave a speech at the American Bar Association in which he raised a number of serious concerns about the administration of the death penalty. He pointed to aspects of capital proceedings that he believes unfairly tilt the balance in favor of the prosecution, both at the trial and sentencing stages.

Specifically, he raised concerns about the jury selection process, arguing that jurors are questioned so extensively about the death penalty that they might assume their role is primarily to decide the sentence for a presumptively guilty defendant. He also argued that representation of indigent defendants remains an issue that has not been adequately addressed. And he noted that elected state judges may have a, quote, "subtle bias," unquote, in favor of death because they have to face re-election.

Now, I know all of us on this committee have the greatest respect for state court judges, but we all can understand the pressures of a re-election campaign. So, what are your views on the potential of these three issues -- the jury selection, the inadequate representation and an elected judiciary -- to skew a capital prosecution against the defendant?

And do you share these concerns that Justice Stevens outlined?

ALITO: I certainly share a concern that there should be a fair procedure for the selection of jurors. That certainly is a concern.

The issue of the election of judges at the state level or the appointment of judges at the state level is a matter for state legislatures to decide....based on my experience, I think you can have highly competent and, certainly, conscientious state judges who are appointed and the same sort of judges who are elected.

And, of course, we do have habeas corpus. And it is important to make sure that constitutional rights are respected.

...FEINGOLD: Can you just tell me what your general approach to the Eighth Amendment would be in the context of the death penalty?

ALITO: My approach would be to work within the body of precedent that we have.

I'm not reassured by Alito's responses. They were pat, boilerplate and coached, devoid of any sense of compassion. Does he have a personality? I'm not seeing it.