A question of grammar — For an individual U.S. Supreme Court nominee, does the Senate Judiciary Committee hold a “confirmation hearing” (singular) or “confirmation hearings” (plural): Careful readers may have noticed as of late that in my own writings I’ve been opting for the singular (which appears to mirror the resolution of this grammatical issue reflected at the Judiciary Committee’s web site). But, on the eve of the Alito confirmation hearing(s), I’d be happy to hear via email from readers who wish to offer their informed thoughts on the subject.
“Critics give Alito ‘steep hill to climb'”: Joan Biskupic will have this article Monday in USA Today.
Monday in The New York Times, David D. Kirkpatrick, who will be blogging the confirmation hearing for that newspaper, will have an article headlined “Two Legal Careers That Diverged May Intertwine Again.”
And Monday’s edition of The Washington Post will contain an editorial entitled “Questioning Judge Alito.”
“Alito’s Journey: Groomed for the Bench; Proving His Mettle in the Reagan Justice Dept.” Part two of The Washington Post’s front page two-part series on U.S. Supreme Court nominee Samuel A. Alito, Jr. will appear in Monday’s newspaper and can now be accessed online at this link. The very interesting part one of the series, which appears in today’s newspaper, can be accessed here.
The authors of the articles, who interviewed (among others) Judge Alito’s wife, sister, and mother, will participate in an online chat at washingtonpost.com tomorrow at 11 a.m.
“Issues and (Possible) Answers: A Primer on the Alito Hearings.” Adam Liptak will have this article Monday in The New York Times.
“O’Connor’s era reflects politics of Supreme Court”: Today in The Charlotte Observer, Tom Kazee has this review of Joan Biskupic’s book, “Sandra Day O’Connor: How the First Woman on the Supreme Court Became Its Most Influential Justice.”
For those who can’t wait to see U.S. Supreme Court confirmation hearings: Yesterday evening’s broadcast of C-SPAN‘s “America & the Courts” (click here to access in RealPlayer) consisted of “a look at how current Supreme Court Justices answered questions on abortion, civil rights, privacy & precedence from Senators on the Judiciary Committee during their confirmation hearings. This program includes Antonin Scalia on Stare Decisis, Clarence Thomas on Roe v. Wade, John Roberts on Privacy, and others.”
In addition, C-SPAN provides access via this link to a whole bunch of recently recorded video segments related to the confirmation hearing scheduled to get underway at noon eastern time tomorrow.
“Dems to attack Alito’s credibility at hearings; Republicans say they will tout high court nominee’s credentials, including unanimous top rating from ABA”: Monday’s edition of Newsday will contain this article.
And The Associated Press reports that “Santorum Rails Against Alito Opposition.”
“Democrats Ready to Go After Alito; High Court Nominee’s Memos Opposing Abortion Likely to Be Focal Points at Hearings”: This article will appear Monday in The Washington Post.
The Wall Street Journal’s “Washington Wire” on Monday will carry the headline “Prepping Alito for the Hot Seat” (free access).
USA Today on Monday will contain an editorial entitled “Rights at risk.”
CBS News legal analyst Andrew Cohen has an essay entitled “The Alito Shuffle.”
At Salon.com, Walter Shapiro has an essay entitled “Alito’s bad luck: The latest Supreme Court nominee has to face a Senate newly emboldened to challenge the imperial Bush presidency; And his paper trail gives them plenty of ammunition to do it.”
And in Monday’s edition of The Guardian (UK), Marcel Berlins has an essay entitled “Time for American justice to be judged.”
“FBI agents’ work faulted; Report criticizes Md. office in death of U.S. prosecutor”: The Baltimore Sun today contains an article that begins, “A Department of Justice inspector general report obtained by The Sun found ‘credible evidence of serious misconduct’ by agents from the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Baltimore division who investigated the death of federal prosecutor Jonathan P. Luna two years ago.”
And The Associated Press provides an article headlined “Report: FBI agents committed ‘serious misconduct’ in Luna probe.”
“The Cool Fervor of Judge Alito: Is he a conservative activist or a legal scholar not bound by ideology? Now’s his chance to argue his case.” The January 16, 2006 issue of Time magazine will contain this article.
Monday’s edition of The Times of London reports that “Court battle will cast a spotlight on Bush legacy.”
In Monday’s edition of Financial Times, Patti Waldmeir reports that “Alito ‘good guy, bad guy’ hostilities fail to rouse public.”
Bloomberg News reports that “Democrats Won’t Rule Out Blocking Alito’s Confirmation to Court.”
Voice of America News reports that “Senate Hearings on Supreme Court Nominee Begin Monday.”
And Monday in The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, David Newby will have an op-ed entitled “Judge at odds with interests of state workers.”
On this evening’s broadcast of NPR‘s “All Things Considered“: The broadcast contained segments entitled “Preview: The Alito Hearings” and “Bush and the Presidential Signing Statement.”
“Judging Alito as he would judge”: This editorial will appear Monday in The Christian Science Monitor.
“Crying out against the justices isn’t answer”: Today in The St. Petersburg Times, columnist Howard Troxler has an op-ed that begins, “It has become the usual thing, when you lose a big court case these days, to attack the judges.”
“Key question for Alito: presidential power; Senate confirmation hearings, starting Monday, are expected to delve into presidential powers.” Monday’s edition of The Christian Science Monitor will contain this article.
The Australian reports that “Court nominee to face Congress.”
Jesse J. Holland of The Associated Press reports that “Talk Is Tough on Eve of Alito Hearings.” The AP also reports that “Conservatives Split Ahead of Alito Hearing.”
Thomas Ferraro of Reuters reports that “Alito seen surviving tough US confirmation hearing.”
And The Green Bay Press-Gazette reports that “Feingold, Kohl ready questions for Alito hearing.”
In commentary, The Chicago Tribune contains an op-ed by Law Professor Jonathan Turley entitled “Tackling a judge’s ideology: Alito appears to be the Bob Newhart of judging, delivering deadpan decisions that make him difficult to lionize or demonize.”
And in The Denver Post, Daniel Kemmis has an op-ed entitled “The West and the high court: Region’s senators should play a key role in confirmation process.”
“Blogging: Scholarship or Distraction?” This post appears today at “TaxProf Blog.”
Available online from The Associated Press: “Alito’s Writings, Rulings Provide Insight“; “Schedule for Alito’s Hearings“; and “The Current Justices, Their Religions.”
“Tackling a judge’s ideology: The Senate should ignore the unwritten laws of Washington and strongly consider the ideology of a U.S. Supreme Court nominee.” Columnist Steve Chapman has this op-ed today in The Chicago Tribune.
Today in The Los Angeles Times, Law Professor Cass R. Sunstein has an op-ed entitled “Our legal guardians.” And Edward Lazarus has an op-ed entitled “Alito’s moment: Has Bush doomed his own nominee?”
In The Boston Globe, Robert Kuttner has an op-ed entitled “Alito may be the worst choice.”
In The Houston Chronicle, columnist Cragg Hines has an op-ed entitled “Will the real Samuel Alito stand up? Not very likely.” And Law Professor David R. Dow has an op-ed entitled “The decisive question: Is Alito a prophet? Prophetic skills are a must in person who fills court vacancy.”
In Newsday, Lawrence Baum has an op-ed entitled “What will hearings tell about Alito? Little.”
David Sanders of the Arkansas News Bureau has an essay entitled “A letter to two senators.”
And in The Oregonian, columnist David Reinhard has an op-ed entitled “The Alito Hearings.”
Today in The Kansas City Star, Sean Rushton has an op-ed entitled “Alito’s character, abilities outshine his foes’ distortions.” And Amy F. Isaacs has an op-ed entitled “Judge has demonstrated his promises are worthless.”
In The Salt Lake Tribune, Bruce Wilson has an op-ed entitled “Arlen Specter’s super-duper litmus test.”
In The San Francisco Chronicle, John H. Bunzel has an op-ed entitled “Key questions for Alito lost in abortion hubbub.”
And yesterday in The Rocky Mountain News, John W. Suthers has an op-ed entitled “Experienced Alito ideal for Supreme Court.”
“Appeals Court, Reversing Itself, Holds 2 Salvadoran Generals Liable in Torture Case”: This article appears today in The New York Times. My earlier coverage is here.
“Name That Source: Why are the courts leaning on journalists?” Jeffrey Toobin will have this “Annals of Law” essay in the January 16, 2006 issue of The New Yorker.
“Samuel Alito Jr.’s merits”: This editorial appears today in The Chicago Tribune.
The San Francisco Chronicle today contains an editorial entitled “10 questions for Samuel Alito.”
The Baltimore Sun contains an editorial entitled “Questions for Judge Alito.”
The Seattle Post-Intelligencer contains an editorial entitled “Alito Nomination: Time isn’t right.”
The Philadelphia Inquirer contains an editorial entitled “The Alito Hearings: A need for scrutiny.”
The Houston Chronicle contains an editorial entitled “Alito’s record: Bush’s court nominee, if confirmed, can be relied on to rule much as the judge’s admirers expect him to.”
The Detroit Free Press contains an editorial entitled “Questions for Justice: Toughest challenging of Alito should be on executive power, protecting liberties.”
The Oregonian contains an editorial entitled “A king-size effort for judge to seem like a moderate; Judge Samuel Alito needs to talk his way out of a filibuster.”
The Republican of Springfield, Massachusetts contains an editorial entitled “Questions for the judge who would be a justice.”
The South Florida Sun-Sentinel contains an editorial entitled “Supreme Court: Legal group calls Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito ‘well qualified.’”
And The Morning Sentinel of Maine contains an editorial entitled “Time for Alito to explain who he is and what he thinks.”
“In Alito Battle, Issues of Presidential Power Thrust to Forefront”: David G. Savage has this article today in The Los Angeles Times.
In the January 16, 2006 issue of Newsweek, Stuart Taylor Jr. and Evan Thomas have a periscope item headlined “Supreme Court: Tune In; A TV Guide To the Alito Hearings.”
The Baltimore Sun reports today that “Alito likely to face tough confirmation hearings.”
In The Houston Chronicle, Patty Reinert reports that “Alito’s future hinges on past; Senate panel is expected to look at history on civil rights, abortion, executive power.”
The Newark (N.J.) Star-Ledger contains articles headlined “Lady and gentlemen, start your questioning” and “Alito-O’Connor comparisons defy conventional labels.”
In The San Francisco Chronicle, Bob Egelko reports that “Alito must avoid being ‘Borked’; The lesson of Reagan’s nominee is: Say just as little as you possibly can.” The newspaper also contains articles headlined “An ideological rumble; The nomination: Expect confirmation hearings to be partisan slugfests, Senate-style” and “The abortion issue: Public opinion is polarized and bitter long after Roe vs. Wade ruling.”
Newsday contains an article headlined “Alito’s ‘defining moment’ of truth; Supreme Court nominee’s opening remarks during Senate hearings this week will set the tone.”
The Arizona Republic reports that “Alito battle brewing; Tough hearing awaits high court nominee.”
The Cleveland Plain Dealer contains an article headlined “Abortion: Where does Ohio stand? Numbers fall in state, but it’s still in central role as debate rekindles with Alito hearings.”
The Tampa Tribune reports that “Abortion Debated But Rarely Ruled Upon.”
The Denver Post reports that “Alito backers, foes seek sway on Salazar’s vote; Hearings to begin.”
The Birmingham News reports that “Alabama redistricting likely to arise; Alito’s stance debated on ‘one man, one vote.’”
The Burlington Free Press reports that “Leahy to question Alito on domestic spying.”
The Philadelphia Inquirer reports that “Plans for national Christian rally here are criticized.”
MarketWatch reports that “Alito begins confirmation battle; Supreme Court nominee’s Senate hearings start Monday.”
And The Daily Princetonian provides news updates headlined “Stage set for showdown over Alito; If confirmed, Alito would be Princeton’s ninth justice and first since 1955” and “CAP critic dropped from Alito witness list; Dujack ’76 regrets controversial op-ed, will not testify before Senate committee.”
