[ChildOfThe60s]

I understand the reasoning here, and figure it is probably fairly accurate.

But, gee whiz, in reality what does having italian blood have to do with the price of tea in China? Nothing. It is an extremely sad commentary on our society when attributes such as the birthplace of one's parents are considered part of qualifications for such a [or any] position.

And the real irony here is that the people that put the most stock in sex and race as qualifications (i.e. Bush should have appointed a minority or woman for balance) are the first to claim we shouldn't single people out because of their race and/or sex. But that is all they do, all of the time. And republicans do a very poor job of challenging them on it.

[AFPhys]

I believe that the R philosophy of that question is that those who can be persuaded to vote Republican to begin with are smart enough to figure out the bigotry themselves, without having to be bashed over the head with it. Before talk radio and the internet, the R's had that philosophy, stuck with it and you had to be analyze it for yourself. Now, anybody who has ears will be exposed without the R politicians having to engage the question directly.

[unseen]

It is not so much his blood but his ideas and cultural that he grew up in. An Italian-american Catholic family has certain beliefs and views that say a southern baptist family doesn't. To vote against someone like Alito that has all the qualifications for no reason points to them voting against his beliefs which translates pretty well to the rank and file Regan Democrats that the liberal left does not support their views which means a no vote in the next election. Now if he wasn't qualified or he had spoken or acted out of character from those views that would be different.