Disagreeing with Judge Samuel Alito Jr.’s conservative views is insufficient grounds for opposing his nomination to the Supreme Court. By almost all measures, Judge Alito has an outstanding academic background, unusual intelligence, real decency and deep experience that place him well within the bounds of being qualified for the court.

His views are strongly conservative; when given the latitude within the law, his interpretations have been invariably conservative. There can be no doubt that this is one reason President Bush nominated him. This eventuality may have been cause to have opposed the president’s re-election in November 2004, but it is not reason for senators to oppose the Alito nomination now.

After days of testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Judge Alito demonstrated that he is an able jurist, a technocrat, hostile to Roe v. Wade and a careful job applicant who would work hard to avoid saying what he is thinking if that would interfere with his assent to the Supreme Court.

That last trait is a natural position for any applicant; it is the senators’ duty to probe behind that defense, but they almost never did. Democrats, with rare exception, provided weak and windy questions that gave Judge Alito ample means to duck the underlying point. Republicans, with the exception of Chairman Arlen Specter, didn’t bother to illuminate any but the most obvious and flattering of Judge Alito’s views. The public, as a result, has learned very little, and the hearings themselves look like an embarrassment to the Senate.

So the public must look elsewhere for opinions on Judge Alito. Liberals in opposition to his nomination have referred often to the views of Cass Sunstein, a professor of law and political science at the University of Chicago and the author of the book, “Radicals in Robes: Why Extreme Right-Wing Courts are Wrong for America.” After reviewing Judge Alito’s conservative dissent in a half dozen cases during his time on the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals, Mr. Sunstein draws the following conclusion: “None of Alito’s opinions is reckless or irresponsible or even especially far-reaching. His disagreement is unfailingly respectful. His dissents are lawyerly rather than bombastic. … Alito does not place political ideology in the forefront.”

This is far from an endorsement, but suggests that even a scholar who sees the harm right-wing courts do to this country does not view Alito in the scary terms that so many have. Members of the American Bar Association seem to feel even more positive toward the judge. It recently awarded him their highest rating for professional stature and integrity.

A concern raised by several Demo-crats on the Senate committee is that Judge Alito tends to interpret the law strictly especially when individuals before his court have faced corporations or government institutions. In each case – of a 10-year-old girl who was body-searched by police, of an African-American woman denied promotion by a hotel chain, of employees who sought medical leave – Judge Alito’s reasoning of the details of the cases has been chilling even if accurate.

Judge Alito has the handicap of following the personable John Roberts; he does not come across nearly as eloquent or relaxed before the committee. The Senate vote, particularly because he will be replacing Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, who often decided 5-4 majorities, will be tougher for him.

But neither his personality nor his political outlook is a reason for rejecting him. Judge Alito meets the standards of judicial expertise and should be confirmed.