Of course Alito is not an extremist, activist judge, but only if you ignore...
His position favoring that married women be required to inform their husbands if they wish to get an abortion. As Roxanne asked, would he favor married husbands be required to inform their wives if they intend to get vasectomies? Probably not. Violations of the Constitution are okay only if they affect women and not men. You may read Planned Parenthood of Southeastern PA v. Casey here.
His position favoring race discrimination, in particular his dissenting opinion in a decision in favor of a Marriott Hotel manager who said she had been discriminated agianst based on her race.
His position that it's okay to fire AIDS victims because of "fear of contagion whether reasonable or not."
* Alito believes that laws restricting intact dilation and extraction procedures (so-called "partial birth" abortion) are not Constitutionally vague, even when they do not provide exemptions for the life and health of the mother.
* Alito wants to see fetuses treated by the law as "Constitutional persons".
* Alito, in a dissenting opinion, favored violating privacy in Doe v. Groody, in which police strip-searched a woman and her ten-year old daughter. In his dissenting opinion (the court found in favor of the Does), he argued that "the warrant could be read to authorize a search on anyone on the premises and that 'even if the warrant did not contain such authorization, a reasonable police officer could certainly have read the warrant as doing so, and therefore the appellants are entitled to qualified immunity.'"
There are many more cases cited at the People For The American Way site, including cases of age, disability, racial, and religious discrimination. Go there to read the rest.