Available online from National Public Radio: This evening’s broadcast of “All Things Considered” contained segments entitled “Roberts Resists Specifics in Senate Session” (featuring Nina Totenberg); “Senators Prod a Stoic Roberts“; and “Senate Hearings and John Roberts.”
And today’s broadcast of “Talk of the Nation” contained a segment entitled “Highlights from the Roberts’ Confirmation Hearings” (featuring David G. Savage).
RealPlayer is required to launch these audio segments.
Ten days ago tonight: Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist died.
“Roberts Indicates Respect for Abortion Precedent”: The Los Angeles Times provides this news update.
And The Washington Post provides a news update headlined “Hearings Begin With Questions About Abortion; Democratic Senators Challenge Roberts on Civil Right, Gender-Discrimination Laws.”
You can access a transcript of today’s proceedings at this link (via The New York Times).
“Not Encouraging, Part II”: Andrew at “Confirm Them” follows-up here his earlier post from today, which I earlier noted here.
“Roberts Plays It Circumspect”: Charles Lane has this news analysis online at The Washington Post.
Online at The Los Angeles Times, Ronald Brownstein has a news analysis headlined “A Strong Performance by a Clear Favorite.”
And The Associated Press provides a report headlined “Feinstein: Disappointed Roberts not more forthcoming.”
“How the Court Imitates the World Series: John Roberts’ winning baseball analogy.” Jack Shafer has this press box essay online at Slate.
“Roberts’ Rope-A-Dope”: CBS News legal analyst Andrew Cohen has this essay concerning today’s events.
“Senators wary of court reach; At hearings, they challenge Roberts on balance of powers”: This article will appear Wednesday in The Christian Science Monitor.
“The Issue Senators Dare Not Speak of by Name”: Dana Milbank has this essay online at The Washington Post.
“U.S. court declines to decide who is an Indian”: Reuters provides this report on a ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued today.
“Roberts the Elder: John Roberts has an understated personality, but his record will be all torpedo.” Law Professor Jonathan Turley has this essay online at The Village Voice.
U.S. Supreme Court Justices don’t bat, but tomorrow night one will pitch: In his opening statement yesterday, Chief Justice nominee John G. Roberts, Jr. stated that “I will remember that it’s my job to call balls and strikes and not to pitch or bat.”
Tomorrow night, however, as reported here (second to last item): “U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens will throw out the first pitch on Wednesday [when the Chicago Cubs host the Cincinnati Reds]. It is believed to be the first time a U.S. Supreme Court Justice has done so at a Major League game. Supreme Court justices once frequently attended Opening Day in Washington D.C., most often sharing a box with the president. The president usually got to throw out the first pitch. Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes attended a Cubs-Giants game at Wrigley Field on Aug. 22, 1930. According to research by baseball historian Ed Hartig, Hughes did attend several banquets as well as the game, but did not throw out a first pitch.”
“US lumber issues legal challenge to NAFTA system”: Reuters provides this report.
The Associated Press is reporting: Now available online are reports headlined “Roberts Fields Hours of Questions“; “Roberts Dodges Specifics on Abortion“: and “Newsview: Roberts Smooths Rough Edges.”
On today’s broadcast of NPR‘s “Day to Day“: The program contained segments entitled “Roberts Grilled on Key Abortion Ruling” and “Slate’s Jurisprudence: Roberts’ Legal Philosophy” (featuring Emily Bazelon). RealPlayer is required to launch these audio segments.
“In the Face of a CNN Lawsuit, FEMA Agrees To Allow Media Coverage Of Katrina’s Dead: If the Case Had Proceeded, Who Would Have Won, and Why?” FindLaw commentator Julie Hilden has this essay online today.
“Roberts’s testimony provides no assurance that he’d uphold a woman’s right to choose”: This post appears at “Nomination Watch,” the blog of the National Women’s Law Center.
For a somewhat different view, Andrew at “Confirm Them” has a post titled “Not an Encouraging Morning.”
Rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court have consequence: The Day of New London, Connecticut today contains an article headlined “NLDC evicts some Fort Trumbull homeowners; Ward calls for special legislative session” that begins:
Tenants of two houses in the Fort Trumbull neighborhood received notices Monday from the New London Development Corp. ordering them to leave in 90 days and to pay an occupancy fee for the remainder of their time there.
The notices arrived at 49 and 53 Goshen St. three weeks after the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the right of the city and the NLDC to seize houses in the Fort Trumbull neighborhood to make way for a commercial development designed to plump up the tax base.
While the court sanctioned the takings, Gov. M. Jodi Rell and the state legislature also asked all cities and towns to refrain from flexing their eminent domain power until lawmakers had a chance to consider measures that would protect the rights of private property owners.
In other coverage, The Associated Press reports that “Winners of eminent domain case send out eviction notices.”
John G. Roberts, Jr. agrees with the result in Griswold v. Connecticut: Marc Ambinder notes the exchange here, and Tom Goldstein here.
In commentary: Today in The New York Times, columnist John Tierney has an op-ed entitled “Making Roberts Talk.”
Today in The Los Angeles Times, Stephen Gillers, David Luban and Steven Lubet have an op-ed entitled “Roberts’ bad decision.” Last month, Slate published a similar essay by these same law professors.
In USA Today, Sandy Grady has an op-ed entitled “Time for Supreme Court reality TV: John Roberts’ confirmation hearings highlight need for justices to end their camera shyness; Americans would be better educated if court proceedings on the issues of the day were televised.”
In The Boston Globe, columnist Thomas Oliphant has an op-ed entitled “The stealth appointee.”
The Baltimore Sun contains an editorial entitled “The secrecy precedent.”
Newsday contains an editorial entitled “Roberts’ power play: Washington’s worries about change in balance of power emerge at hearing.”
In The Houston Chronicle, columnist Cragg Hines has an op-ed entitled “Waiting for a second name to drop in top court drama.”
The News & Observer of Raleigh, North Carolina contains an editorial entitled “Divining Roberts: Americans this week deserve a full airing of John Roberts’ legal philosophy; His pledge of impartiality is a good start.”
The Minneapolis Star Tribune contains an editorial entitled “What is Roberts’ America like?”
The Boston Herald contains an editorial entitled “In John Roberts, make the right call.”
The Lincoln Journal Star contains an editorial entitled “On Roberts: ‘At least he’s not Scalia.’”
The Virginian-Pilot contains an editorial entitled “Reasonable questions for Judge Roberts.”
In The Christian Science Monitor, Martin Mayer has an op-ed entitled “Why they legislate ‘from the bench.’” And Seth Stern has an essay entitled “Whose order will prevail in US courts? Two new books arrive just in time to help sort out the role of politics in US courts.”
CBS News legal analyst Andrew Cohen has an essay entitled “Toothless Wolf To Question Roberts.”
Online at The New Republic, David Kusnet has an essay entitled “Judicial Restraint: John Roberts cleverly built his opening statement around the theme of humility; That will appeal to liberals and conservatives–for very different reasons.”
Online at The Weekly Standard, Matthew Continetti has an essay entitled “Notes from the Confirmation: The first day of hearings on John Roberts foretell a coming debate on the meaning of the Constitution.”
Online at The Nation, David Corn has a post entitled “John Roberts Meets the Senate.”
And at Salon.com, Michael Scherer has an essay entitled “Roberts’ rules of order: The first day of John Roberts’ confirmation hearings played as expected, with senators posturing, Judge Roberts saying nothing, and a pro-life activist dressed as Betsy Ross setting off a metal detector.” And Dan Noyes has an essay entitled “The moneyed scales of justice? John Roberts’ ties to corporate America, and his potential for conflicts of interest, would be unprecedented for a sitting justice; Will the Senate notice?”
“A Modest Proposal: Why John Roberts can’t stop bragging about his humility.” Bruce Reed has this post at Slate’s “The Has-Been.”
“Roberts Indicates Respect for Abortion Precedent”: David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times provides this news update.
The Washington Post, meanwhile, offers a news update headlined “Hearings Begin With Questions About Abortion; Democratic Senators Challenge Roberts on Civil Right, Gender-Discrimination Laws.” And Terry M. Neal offers a “Talking Points” column entitled “Watching the Hearings Through a Partisan Lens.”
For live blogging of this afternoon’s session, you can opt for Tom Goldstein of “SCOTUSblog,” Tom Curry of MSNBC, and Marc Ambinder of National Journal.
“Does John Roberts Have a Judicial Philosophy?” Law Professor Lawrence B. Solum offers this post at his “Legal Theory Blog.”
Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-DE) is fencing with the nominee: Additional confrontational questioning can be expected later today from Senators Schumer, Durbin, and Feingold.
“Second Day of Hearings on the Nomination of Judge Roberts”: Via The New York Times, you can access a transcript of today’s proceedings at this link.
The Associated Press is reporting: Now available online are articles headlined “Roberts: Roe v. Wade ‘Entitled to Respect’” and “Roberts Repeatedly Dodges Roe v. Wade.”
“Roberts Confirmation Hearings Open on Capitol Hill”: Yesterday evening’s broadcast of the PBS program “The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer” contained two related segments, which you can access here (transcript with link to audio) and here (RealPlayer required).
“Senate to Begin Questioning of John Roberts”: This segment (RealPlayer required) featuring Nina Totenberg appeared on today’s broadcast of NPR‘s “Morning Edition.”
“The Roberts Court”: Stuart Taylor Jr. has this essay in this week’s issue of National Journal.
“Confirmation Report: And you thought the Supreme Court was out of touch with reality?” Dahlia Lithwick has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.
Available at National Review Online: U.S. Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT) has an essay entitled “John Roberts Isn’t Running for Congress: The Court is different.”
Byron York has an essay entitled “At Roberts Hearing, the Question of Questions: Republicans start out in a defensive crouch.”
Stephen B. Presser and Charles E. Rice have an essay entitled “Religious Tests: Where some Dems want to go, but shouldn’t.”
And John R. Lott Jr. has an essay entitled “Supreme Rhetoric: Remember the past when watching the hearings.”
Sixth Circuit reverses injunction prohibiting the Michigan Department of Corrections from enforcing a permanent ban on virtually all visitation for prisoners found guilty of two or more substance abuse violations while incarcerated: Today was a big day in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit for cases previously heard on the merits in the Supreme Court of the United States.
In addition to today’s ruling, summarized here, in Cutter v. Wilkinson, the Sixth Circuit today appears to have finally resolved a ten-year-old prison conditions case known as Overton v. Bazzetta when the Supreme Court ruled on it in June 2003. My summary of the Supreme Court’s ruling can be accessed here. Today’s ruling, which overturns a federal trial court’s injunction prohibiting Michigan’s state prison system from enforcing a rule that prohibits repeat in-prison drug users from receiving outside visitors, can be accessed here.
The Associated Press is reporting: Jesse J. Holland has a report headlined “Roberts: Precedent Important for Abortion.”
And in other news, “Court Mulls Release of Columbine Videos.”
“Senate Starts Roberts Hearings, Sets Groundwork for Questions”: Jeanne Cummings and Jess Bravin have this article (pass-through link) today in The Wall Street Journal.
And The Denver Post today contains articles headlined “Roberts sees role as limited; The nominee addresses judicial activism in his opening remarks; Senators’ questioning starts today” and “Colo. activists want answers in hearings; On each side of the spectrum, the goal is the same: getting Colorado’s senators to vote their way on the nomination of John Roberts.”
“We hold that RLUIPA is valid Spending Clause legislation that is not barred by the Tenth Amendment.” Today the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit issued its ruling in the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act case known as Cutter v. Wilkinson. The case came before the Sixth Circuit on remand from the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled on the case earlier this year.
