“Alito joined ruling overturning HIV bias in foster care; But nominee helped write guideline allowing HIV disability discrimination”: New York Blade provides this report.

“Specter, others push for courtroom cameras”: This article will appear Tuesday in The Hill.

Available online from law.com: An article reports that “High Court to Hear Challenge to Terror Tribunals.”

In other news, “A Tale of Disaster and Two Courts: U.S. courts open, while Louisiana courts struggle; judges elsewhere say Katrina is a lesson for courts in other regions.”

And an article reports that “Lawsuit Goes Forward in Anthrax Mailing Case; Judge finds evidence of defamation.”

“On Tuesday, November 8, 2005, from 10:00 a.m. until noon, the University of Chicago Law School will host the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit for appellate hearings in our Courtroom.” Details here. And “Patently-O: Patent Law Blog” takes note.

Ninth Circuit denies criminal defendant’s motion to disqualify all of the federal district judges in the Central District of California from presiding over his trial on charges of making threats with intent to extort, assault, murder, or to inflict harm upon three federal district judges serving in that district: You can access today’s ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit at this link.

“A grand slam nomination”: John M. Smith has this op-ed today in The Daily Princetonian.

The newspaper today also contains an editorial entitled “Judging the Judge“; an op-ed by Jordan Rodriguez entitled “Princetonian an air-tight candidate for the court“; and an op-ed by Alexander Djerassi entitled “Alito nomination a sign of Bush’s weakness.”

“Supreme Court to Rule on Validity of Military Tribunals”: Linda Greenhouse of The New York Times provides this news update.

The Associated Press is reporting: Now available online are articles headlined “Justices Hear Mail Slip-And-Fall Arguments“; “Pa. High Court Justices Face Angry Voters“; and “Judge’s Indecent Exposure Trial Postponed.”

“Supreme Court to Hear Tribunals Challenge”: Charles Lane of The Washington Post provides this news update.

David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times provides a news update headlined “Supreme Court to Take Up Dispute Over Military Trials.”

Tuesday in The Christian Science Monitor, Warren Richey will report that “Military tribunals to get a test in Supreme Court; The justices opt to take case of a Guantanamo detainee.”

And The Miami Herald on Tuesday will report that “Supreme Court to hear challenge to military commissions.”

Just returned home from Chicago: Where last night and today I had the pleasure of meeting many fans of this blog from the University of Chicago Law School. In addition, today I got to meet Law Professor Cass R. Sunstein, who talked about (what else?) Third Circuit Judge Samuel A. Alito, Jr.‘s dissents. I also enjoyed debating the Solomon Amendment case today with Law Professor Kent Greenfield, who is a formidable adversary. We will reprise the debate this Friday at the Boston College Law School.

“No Nukes: Enough with the ‘f’ word.” Law Professor David Stras has this essay today at National Review Online.

“Appeals court faces split; Republicans pushing to divide 9th Circuit”: Howard Mintz has this article today in The San Jose Mercury News.

BREAKING NEWS — “Court to rule on military commissions”: Lyle Denniston has this early report online at “SCOTUSblog.”

Gina Holland of The Associated Press reports that “Supreme Court to Hear Tribunals Challenge.”

And Reuters provides an early report headlined “US high court to hear Guantanamo prisoner’s appeal.”

Meanwhile, in other news relating to today’s Order List, The AP reports that “Supreme Court to Hear Honduran’s Case” and “Court Passes on Transsexual Discrimination.”

Today’s Order List can be accessed here.

“2 justices 1st to face voters on pay raise; Activists say top court fails to hold lawmakers to provisions of law”: This article appears today in The Harrisburg Patriot-News.

And today in The Philadelphia Daily News, columnist John Baer has an essay entitled “You can serve up a shot and a bier.”

My earlier coverage can be found here.

“Cutting his own path: ‘Justice’ Alito could alter criminal law.” Marcia Coyle has this article in today’s issue of The National Law Journal.

“Borking Alito: He Is Neither Far-Right Nor Activist.” Stuart Taylor Jr. has this essay today in National Journal.

“Blawg Review #31”: Andrew Raff hosts it here, at “IPTAblog.”

“Abortion cases scheduled before a Supreme Court in transition”: Michael McGough has this article today in The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.

The Washington Times reports today that “Biden says filibuster on Alito unlikely.”

The Providence Journal reports that “Alito active in creche debates; His opinions regarding the separation of church and state elicit comments from Republican Senate primary foes Sen. Lincoln D. Chafee and Mayor Stephen P. Laffey.”

And The Daily Princetonian contains articles headlined “Alito ’72 tapped for high court” and “Nominee led conference recommending privacy, gay rights.”

Meanwhile, in commentary, The Washington Post today contains an editorial entitled “Judge Alito on Abortion.”

And in The Boston Globe, Cathy Young has an op-ed entitled “Alito’s jurisprudence…,” while Law Professor Laurence H. Tribe has an op-ed entitled “…and his miscalculations.”

“Abortion case is really about ‘Roe'”: Today in The Concord Monitor, Hillary Nelson has an op-ed that begins, “New Hampshire’s date before the Supreme Court is a proxy in a much larger political war.”

“Position Statements: Alito as reactionary.” John B. Judis has this essay online today at The New Republic.

“Senator’s service as military judge scrutinized; Armed Forces court to hear case on whether Graham’s status violates separation of powers”: This article appears today in USA Today.

“Ups and downs”: In The November 14, 2005 issue of The New Yorker, Hendrik Hertzberg has this Talk of the Town essay about the forthcoming U.S. Supreme Court confirmation process for Samuel A. Alito, Jr.