“Confirming Justice Alito?” Law Professor Cass R. Sunstein has this post today at The University of Chicago Law School’s “Faculty Blog.”

“Senate windbags fail to land a blow on court nominee”: Sunday’s edition of The Telegraph (UK) contains this article.

Sunday’s edition of Newsday will contain an article headlined “For Alito, shift by court seen as certain; Alito testified at his confirmation hearings he’d just follow the law, but experts still say he will move court to right.”

The Daily Princetonian provides a news update headlined “Former CAP official says he didn’t help Alito; Eastland writes he had ‘no part’ in 1985 decision to hire Alito for Justice Department position.” The article reports on Terry Eastland’s essay entitled “Inside ‘Concerned Alumni of Princeton’: Samuel Alito had virtually nothing to do with the notorious CAP; I did” in the January 23, 2006 issue of The Weekly Standard.

The Harvard Crimson provides a news update headlined “Tribe to Senate: ‘Justice Alito’ Would Reduce Abortion Rights to ‘Hollow Shell’; Harvard professor warns that nominee would chip away at Roe v. Wade.”

The January 23, 2006 issue of U.S. News & World Report will contain articles headlined “In the Lion’s Den, Sound and Fury, and a Few Tears” and “Executive Power and the Issue of Eavesdropping.”

And in the Week in Review section of Sunday’s edition of The New York Times, Law Professor Jeffrey Rosen will have an essay entitled “Alito vs. Roberts, Word by Word.” And a Critic’s Notebook essay is entitled “See Washington Gum the Scenery.”

“Confirm Samuel Alito”: This editorial will appear Sunday in The Washington Post.

And The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel on Sunday will contain an editorial entitled “Alito deserves confirmation.”

“Partisanship mars judge’s confirmation hearing”: Patti Waldmeir has this article today in Financial Times.

The Associated Press provides an article headlined “Alito Poised to Join Supreme Court” that begins, “Samuel Alito is poised to join a tradition of pragmatic justices who have moved the Supreme Court to the right in measured steps.”

The Boston Globe today contains an editorial entitled “Not fit for the court.”

The Dallas Morning News contains an editorial entitled “Confirm Alito; Nominee deserves Senate’s backing.”

And The Wisconsin State Journal contains an editorial entitled “Alito deserves confirmation.”

Available online from National Public Radio: Yesterday’s broadcast of “All Things Considered” contained segments entitled “Senate Panel Wraps Up Alito Hearings” and “Political Roundup: The Alito Hearings,” both featuring Nina Totenberg.

And yesterday’s hour-long wrap-up of the fifth and final day of the confirmation hearing can be accessed here.

RealPlayer is required to launch these audio segments.

“Democrats See Wide Bush Stamp on Court System”: This article will appear Sunday in The New York Times. And a related graphic is here.

“Waco attorney arrested for kidnapping own client”: Yesterday’s edition of The Waco (Tex.) Tribune-Herald contained an article that begins, “A Waco attorney was arrested this week after allegedly kidnapping a client on his wedding day to try to collect fees from him.”

The Associated Press is reporting: An article headlined “President Presses Senate to Confirm Alito” reports on President Bush’s radio address of this morning.

An article headlined “Supreme Court to Hear First Amendment Case” begins, “The Supreme Court will hear arguments Tuesday in an anti-abortion group’s First Amendment challenge to advertising limits in the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law.”

And in other news, “Sniper Suspect Lawyers File Motion in Md.“; “Judge in Pentagon Papers Case Dies at 75“; and “Lawyer Allegedly Kidnaps Client Over Fees.”

“Alito’s Senate hearings conclude; Democrats hint at delaying vote”: Jan Crawford Greenburg has this article today in The Chicago Tribune.

The Washington Post reports today that “Alito Hearings Conclude; Final Day Focuses on Nominee’s Views on Executive Power.”

The Los Angeles Times reports that “Senate Panel’s Vote on Alito Is Put Off; Judiciary Committee Democrats seek more time to deliberate over the Supreme Court nominee before the full chamber weighs in.”

In The New York Times, Adam Liptak reports that “Presidential Signing Statements, and Alito’s Role in Them, Are Questioned.”

In The San Francisco Chronicle, Bob Egelko reports that “Dems may stall on Alito, but OK likely; Hearings end with praise and warnings about nominee.”

The Boston Globe reports that “Senators say Alito likely to get nod; Opponents launch last-ditch pitch on the airwaves.”

The Newark (N.J.) Star-Ledger reports that “Alito Senate hearings end, but partisan fight rages on; Despite bickering, judge’s confirmation expected.”

In The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Michael McGough reports that “Specter says he’ll vote to confirm Alito.”

The Houston Chronicle contains articles headlined “Democrats hint at seeking delay on vote for Alito; Confirmation hearings close; panel set to decide his fate Tuesday” and “Lawmaker: Alito’s record detrimental to Hispanics; Texas Democrat concerned about legal writings on illegal immigrants.”

The Washington Times reports that “Democrats look to delay Alito vote.”

The Trenton Times reports that “Alumnus slams Alito’s ‘insensitivity.’”

The Daily Princetonian reports that “CAP critic calls Alito ‘unfit’ to serve; Formerly slated to testify before judiciary committee, Dujack ’76 criticizes media for ‘character assassination.’”

The News & Observer of Raleigh, North Carolina reports that “Triangle law professors offer views on Alito.”

The Herald-Sun of Durham, North Carolina reports that “Professor testifies against Alito.”

Via The New York Times, the transcript of yesterday’s confirmation hearing can be accessed here. And via C-SPAN, the video of yesterday’s hearing can be accessed here (RealPlayer required).

“MacDonald gets fourth appeal; Marshal’s claim may lead to retrial”: The News & Observer of Raleigh, North Carolina today contains an article that begins, “Jeffrey MacDonald is coming back to court in North Carolina, where the former Army doctor will get a new chance to argue he’s innocent of butchering his pregnant wife and two daughters at Fort Bragg 36 years ago. A federal appeals court told MacDonald’s lawyers Friday that they may pursue a rare fourth appeal.”