Reader John J. Vecchione emails to explain:

Another reason Alito isn't as vulnerable as Bork and Thomas were many years ago, besides the make-up of the Senate, is the education of the public that has gone on in every Presidential campaign since 1988 on the judge issue, and recently even in Senate battles. Win or lose the Republicans have clearly stated 1) a philosophy of judging (originalism or textualism) that preserves democracy; 2) repeated the message that many decisions the public dislikes were not required by the Constitution, but only by an out-of-touch judicial elite and 3) that the judiciary has become out of control.  The Democrats have countered only by saying the Republicans want "separate but equal" which nobody believes.  Even Clinton did not formulate a judicial philosophy understood by the public.

In the old days a large majority of Americans believed the courts when they said the Constitution, by its terms or history, required no prayer in school, abortion on demand or the flag burning license.  They might not like these things but the inclination was to defer to the law.  That deference is gone and part of the reason is the education of the public by Republican presidential and Senate campaigns, the Federalist Society, talk radio and yes, cable t.v.  Levin's 'Men in Black' was a best seller.  That would have been inconceivable in 1980.  Finally, the Republicans have put Scalia and Thomas on the bench and the world did not end.  This makes the frothing of the left seem silly.

Democrats lose on the issue of judicial control of society.  They have not effectively countered originalism/textualism which is intuitively attractive to Americans who wouldn't want the contracts they enter interpreted the way liberals interpret the Constitution.  If the Constitution requires odd things Americans don't understand, like the electoral college, they will shrug and accept it as part of our legal patrimony.  If, however, it does not require things they don't understand, like the elimination of God from the public square, and yet Courts impose them, the side of the debate trying to explain why that should be so, suffers.  That has occurred over the 20 years since Bork which is why Alito fights from higher, firmer ground than did Bork, the Goldwater of the judiciary!