That's easy. Sheets simply believed his pals from the party that Alito is going to lynch blacks, brutalize women, and reinstate racial segregation. He simply couldn't vote no...
Look, once again, I have nothing but the foulest contempt for Robert Byrd. He said once:
I will never submit to fight beneath that banner [the American flag] with a Negro by my side. Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds.
These words are simply unforgiveable. That Byrd is a respected icon of the Democratic party after this utterance is beyond shameful.
However, his speech in favor of Alito was praiseworthy. Read the whole thing here, but here are some excerpts:
I regret that we have come to a place in our history when both political parties exhibit such a take no prisoners attitude. All sides seek to use the debate over a Supreme Court nominee to air their particular wish list for or against abortion, euthanasia, executive authority, freedom of the press, freedom of speech, wiretapping, the death penalty, workers rights, gun control, corporate greed, and dozens of other subjects. All of these issues should be debated, but the battle lines should not be drawn on the Judiciary. They should be debated by the peoples Representatives in Congress.
However, too many Americans apparently believe that if they cannot get Congress to address an issue, they must take it to the court! As the saying goes, If you cant change the law, change the judge!
This thinking represents a gross misinterpretation of the separation of powers: it is the role of the Congress to make and change the laws; Supreme Court Justices exist to interpret laws and be sure that they square with the Constitution and with settled law.
...
I refuse to simply tow [sic] the Party line when it comes to Supreme Court Justices. Of course, I am a registered Democrat. But when it comes to judges, I hail from a conservative state. And, like a majority of my constituents, I prefer conservative judges - - that is judges who do not try to make the law. In fact, I was once approached by Richard Nixon to be a U.S. Supreme Court Justice. But I declined in order to continue to serve the people of West Virginia.
...
I believe strongly that the Senate has a responsibility to provide its advice and consent with respect to a particular nominee based on the merits or demerits of that nominee not on focus groups, celebrity endorsements, binders filled with innuendo and slanted analysis, or White House photo opportunities.
...
In the end, the heavy duty bourne [sic] by members of the Senate to evaluate and reject or approve the Presidents nominees for the high court should come down to each Senators personal judgment of the man or woman before us, augmented, of course by such judicial records and writings as may exist. I know not exactly what kind of Justice Samuel Alito may actually be - - no one does. But my considered judgment from his record, from his answers to my questions, and from his obvious intelligence and sincerity, leads me to believe him to be an honorable man, who loves his country, loves his Constitution, and will give of his best. Can we really ask for more?
Say what you will about Byrd -- and believe me, I do -- but these words are positively conservative. I will never ever forgive him for his disgusting racism, for his avowed declaration that he would rather see America utterly destroyed than see blacks in the military, but I'll still give props where they are due, and here they are.