“Courting disaster: Legal scholar Cass Sunstein explains the dangers of ‘fundamentalist’ judges on the Supreme Court, why conservatives should fear right-wing radicals as much as liberals, and what went wrong with Roe v. Wade.” This interview with Law Professor Cass R. Sunstein about his new book, “Radicals in Robes: Why Extreme Right-Wing Courts Are Wrong for America,” appears online at Salon.com.

“Roberts’s Character Is Central At Hearing; Senators Will Weigh His Possible Influence”: Monday’s edition of The Washington Post will contain this front page article.

The New York Times on Monday will report that “Roberts Spotlight Falls on Senators, Too.”

The Dallas Morning News on Monday will report that “Roberts hearings begin today; Approval seen as likely as Senate saves battle for next high court spot.”

And The Minneapolis Star Tribune on Monday will contain an article headlined “Abortion: A question Roberts may not answer.”

In commentary, USA Today on Monday will contain an editorial entitled “Roberts’ past vs. U.S. future.” And Law Professor Jonathan Turley will have an op-ed entitled “Role models for Roberts.”

Monday’s issue of Financial Times contains an editorial entitled “Court judgment.”

CBS News legal analyst Andrew Cohen has an essay entitled “The Four Questions.”

Finally for now, U.S. Senator (and Senate Judiciary Committee member) John Kyl (R-AZ) is allowing his diary of the confirmation hearing to be published online at The Arizona Republic. Monday’s installment is headlined “Senators’ words today will be clues to vote.”

“Specter, Leahy avoid partisan fights in run-up to hearings”: This article will appear Monday in The Chicago Tribune.

Who will ask Chief Justice nominee John G. Roberts, Jr. for his views on splitting the Ninth Circuit? Judge Roberts during his confirmation hearing this week certainly should be asked for his views concerning whether the Ninth Circuit ought to be split into two or more smaller circuits. And Judge Roberts should also be asked a related question: whether in his view it is possible for a U.S. Court of Appeals that now has twenty-eight authorized active judges, and may soon have thirty-five authorized active judges, along with nearly as many senior judges to function properly as a cohesive unit of the federal appellate system.

On a related point, it deserves to be noted that Judge Roberts, both before and after joining the D.C. Circuit, served (and still serves) as a member of the U.S. Courts’ Advisory Committee on Appellate Rules. In that capacity, Judge Roberts has voted twice in favor of the adoption of proposed Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 32.1, which would allow briefs on appeal to cite to non-precedential rulings in all federal appellate courts. The Ninth Circuit, perhaps due to its humongous size, is the epicenter of the most vociferous opposition to Rule 32.1. With Judge Roberts slated to become Chief Justice, he will be well-positioned to ensure that proposed Rule 32.1 becomes a part of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure at the earliest possible opportunity provided under the rulemaking process.

“On Judiciary Committee, the drama’s guaranteed”: This article will appear Monday in USA Today.

And you can access online at this link a transcript of today’s broadcast of the NBC program “Meet the Press” on which Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter (R-PA) appeared.

The wire services are reporting: Reuters provides reports headlined “Specter: too soon to put Gonzales on US high court” and “US Senate to open hearing on high-court nominee.”

Jesse J. Holland of The Associated Press reports on “What to Expect in Roberts’ Senate Hearings.” The AP also reports that “Specter Won’t Quiz Roberts on Abortion.” But don’t despair or celebrate too soon, because other members of the Senate Judiciary Committee surely will take up the issue with the nominee in exhaustive detail.

Bloomberg News reports that “Specter Urges Bush Against Gonzales for Supreme Court.”

And Voice of America News reports that “Roberts Confirmation Hearings Begin Monday.”

Michael Chertoff left a life-tenured judgeship on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit for this? The cover story of the September 19, 2005 issue of Time magazine is headlined “System Failure: 4 Places Where the System Broke Down.” Clocking in at fourth place is “The Secretary: Does Michael Chertoff at Homeland Security understand the job?”

In other recent coverage, The Forward on Friday contained an article headlined “Chertoff Takes Heat for Slow Response.” The Baltimore Sun reported recently that “Chertoff may get bulk of blame for faulty response; Homeland security chief has responsibility over much-maligned FEMA.” And Robert Novak recently had an essay entitled “Lawyers vs. Katrina.”

In Monday’s issue of Financial Times: Patti Waldmeir will have an article headlined “Senate committee begins hearings on Judge Roberts.”

And in other news, “Louisiana set for an epic legal fight.”

On this evening’s broadcast of NPR‘s “All Things Considered“: The broadcast contained segments entitled “Behind the Legal Community’s Exclusive Societies” and “A Life of Justice: ‘Hugo Black of Alabama’” (RealPlayer required).

“The challenge facing Roberts; Senate hearings can make or break Supreme Court nominees”: This article will appear Monday in The Christian Science Monitor. The newspaper also offers “A guide to the Roberts hearings.”

Philadelphia Phillies 11; Florida Marlins 1: Today was the final game of the Sunday season ticket package that my son and I had this year, and it ended on a very high note. Wraps and the box score are here. Thanks to today’s loss by the Houston Astros, the Phillies remain in contention for the National League Wild Card spot. And if the Phillies do make the playoffs, we’ll have tickets to two games for each series.

“Roberts–And Then the Real Battle”: This Periscope item will appear in the September 19, 2005 issue of Newsweek.

It goes without saying: The comprehensive coverage that “How Appealing” has provided of the first U.S. Supreme Court vacancy in eleven years will continue tomorrow as the confirmation hearing for John G. Roberts, Jr. to be Chief Justice of the United States begins in the Senate Judiciary Committee.

“Senator Will Not Ask Roberts to Take a Stand on Abortion”: The New York Times today contains an article that begins, “With confirmation hearings for Judge John G. Roberts Jr. set to convene on Monday, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee says in his written opening statement that he does not intend to ask the nominee if he would overturn Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion.”

The Los Angeles Times reports today that “Specter Won’t Limit Roberts Queries.”

The San Jose Mercury News reports that “Feinstein to press Roberts on abortion,” and the newspaper contains an op-ed by U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) entitled “Roberts needs to answer questions about the nation’s critical concerns.”

The Houston Chronicle reports that “Politics colors confirmation; Nominee gets ready for intense grilling by Dems starting Monday.”

The Sacramento Bee contains a front page article headlined “Getting to the heart of Roberts: Senators, finally, can directly probe court nominee’s views.”

The Baltimore Sun reports that “Bush gets chance to put mark on court; As hearings for the chief justice nominee begin, speculation focuses on an open swing-vote seat.”

The Washington Times reports that “Chief justice post carries clout.”

In The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Michael McGough has an article headlined “How would a ‘chief’ Roberts run the nation’s highest court?”

The Boston Globe reports that “Rehnquist court left much unsettled; Narrow decisions keep issues in play.”

The Minneapolis Star Tribune contains an article headlined “Putting Roberts’ opinions to work.”

Newsday contains an article headlined “Tilting the balance of power; Depending on Roberts’ ideological views, his confirmation as chief justice could alter court’s makeup.”

The Indianapolis Star reports that “Lugar will tout Roberts’ values; Nominee’s Hoosier roots will be a theme of introductory remarks at Monday’s hearing.”

In The Philadelphia Inquirer, political analyst Dick Polman reports that “For Bush, court fight is safe harbor.”

And The Casper Star-Tribune contains an article headlined “Casper lawyer: Roberts will get Supreme Court job.”

In commentary, The Dallas Morning News contains an editorial entitled “Judge Roberts’ Hearing: Keep the questions direct, the answers honest.”

The St. Petersburg Times contains an editorial entitled “Ask Roberts about Bill of Rights.”

The Arizona Republic contains an editorial entitled “Voice of moderation: A second high court nominee should reflect the nation’s diversity.”

The Toledo Blade contains an editorial entitled “Hasty court maneuvers.”

The Saginaw News contains an editorial entitled “This nominee — and the next.”

The Grand Rapids Press contains an editorial entitled “Two for the court.”

In Newsday, Kim Eisler has an op-ed entitled “Roberts, enmeshed: The chief justice nominee begins hearings in a town where he is deeply connected to the senators who will question him and the press will cover him.”

In The Washington Post, Law Professor Peter M. Shane and Reed Hundt have an op-ed entitled “Protective Of the Presidency.”

In The Boston Globe, Drake Bennett has an essay entitled “Robo-justice: Do we have the technology to build a better legal system?”

In The Indianapolis Star, columnist Dan Carpenter has an op-ed entitled “Riding the bench for the team.”

In The Washington Times, Paul Rosenzweig has an op-ed entitled “Redundant ritual.”

And The Naples Daily News contains an op-ed by Robert A. Levy entitled “Pro-choice, anti-Roe v. Wade is a sound legal position.”