“Microsoft Asks Supreme Court to Hear $500 Million Eolas Appeal”: This post appears today at “Patently-O: Patent Law Blog.”

“Bush Nominates First-Trimester Fetus To Supreme Court”: Today’s edition of The Onion contains this article. According to the article:

If confirmed by Congress, the bean-sized vertebrate would be the nation’s first prenatal Supreme Court justice.

The unnamed fetus, who made headlines only three weeks ago when he or she was appointed to the Virginia State Supreme Court after working at a private law practice for five hours, has enjoyed a meteoric career in American jurisprudence. A remarkable prodigy who graduated from Georgetown Law School mere days after his or her neural folds fused, the nominee reportedly shares much of the conservative, pro-business philosophy of the Bush White House.

Nevertheless, Capitol Hill sources say that his or her nomination comes as a surprise. Legal observers had anticipated that Bush would name a prominent conservative like Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, or the second-trimester female fetus that heads the legal department of Molson Coors Brewing Company, or former Solicitor General Theodore Olson.

The article goes on to report that the nominee has served as a columnist for The Legal Intelligencer.

Today’s issue of The Onion also contains a newsbrief headlined “Souter Hopes Roberts Is Into Birds.”

“Roberts Supports Privacy, Precedent in Hearings”: Nina Totenberg had this report (RealPlayer required) on today’s broadcast of NPR‘s “Morning Edition.”

A press briefing will follow the meeting of the Judicial Conference of the United States on Tuesday, September 20, 2005: The Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts has today circulated an announcement advising that “The Judicial Conference of the United States will hold its biannual meeting Tuesday, September 20, 2005.” Among other things, the Judicial Conference is scheduled to consider whether to transmit to the Supreme Court of the United States proposed Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 32.1, which would allow non-precedential rulings to be cited in briefs filed in all U.S. Courts of Appeals.

The Supreme Court would then have until May 1, 2006 to transmit the proposed rule to the U.S. Congress, and the rule would take effect on December 1, 2006 unless Congress enacts legislation to reject, modify, or defer the rule. Details on the federal courts’ rulemaking process can be accessed here.

I most recently touched on this issue in a post titled “Who will ask Chief Justice nominee John G. Roberts, Jr. for his views on splitting the Ninth Circuit?”

Weekend at Boerne‘s: A reader emails:

I am listening to the Roberts hearing on the radio. Judge Roberts just pronounced “crabbed” as crab-bed. I always assumed it was pronounced crabd. Have you ever heard someone use Roberts’ pronunciation? I could be wrong–after listening to an appellate argument at the Minnesota Court of Appeals, I was surprised to learn that “primer” is correctly pronounced prim-er rather than prime-er.

(This post’s title is inspired by a movie title.)

“Confirmation Report: OK, John, you’re humble; We get the point.” Dahlia Lithwick has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.

Available today at National Review Online: Byron York has an essay entitled “Roberts Threads the Needle: Just what did he say about Roe? The Democrats didn’t ask.”

Hadley Arkes has an essay entitled “Reversing the Tables: Still time for Republicans to seize the hearing moment.”

Vincent Phillip Munoz has an essay entitled “Holy Rights: Church and state and the Bush justices.”

And Horace Cooper has an essay entitled “Two’s No Crowd: The Senate has rapidly confirmed two justices before.”

Round two of questioning in the Senate Judiciary Committee is now underway: U.S. Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK), the final Judiciary Committee member to ask questions in round one, didn’t even use his entire allotted time.

The Hill is reporting: Today’s newspaper contains articles headlined “Liberal groups focus on ‘flipping’ centrists” and “‘Go ahead … continue not to answer.’”

“Roberts: Congress Can Trump Court Decision.” Jesse J. Holland of The Associated Press provides this report.

“Battle Lost, Eviction Starts; Defiance Persists In Fort Trumbull”: Today in The Hartford Courant, Lynne Tuohy has an article that begins, “Residents of New London’s Fort Trumbull peninsula have been served with orders to move out by mid-December, signaling the end of the line for the diehards who narrowly lost their eminent domain battle before the U.S. Supreme Court.”

And The Day of New London, Connecticut reports today that “Eviction Notices Sent Out By NLDC; Remaining Fort Trumbull residents are told to leave, pay occupancy fee.”

Day three of the confirmation hearing for John G. Roberts, Jr. to be Chief Justice of the United States is underway: U.S. Senators Sam Brownback (R-KS) and Tom Coburn (R-OK) will be asking their first round of questions this morning. And then on to the second round, likely to be followed by a dispute between Democrats and Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee over whether additional rounds of questioning are needed.

In addition to viewing online via C-SPAN3 (using RealPlayer or Windows Media Player), the Judiciary Committee offers a live audio feed, as does National Public Radio (RealPlayer required).

Tom Goldstein of “SCOTUSblog” is live-blogging the hearing, as are Tom Curry of MSNBC and Marc Ambinder of National Journal.

“Chertoff delayed federal response, memo shows”: Jonathan S. Landay, Alison Young and Shannon McCaffrey of Knight Ridder Newspapers provide this report. Before becoming Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, Michael Chertoff served as a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

In somewhat related news, The Clarion-Ledger of Jackson, Mississippi reports today that “Courts returning to routine business; Only jury trials being delayed; many potential jurors now displaced.”

“Roberts Fields Questions on Privacy and Precedents”: This article appears today in The New York Times. Linda Greenhouse has a news analysis headlined “By Invoking a Former Justice, the Nominee Says Much but Gives Away Little.” Adam Liptak has an article headlined “Explicit Endorsements of Some Decisions.” And in related coverage, “With Goal Clear, Nominee Is Profile in Caution” and “In Complex Dance, Roberts Pays Tribute to Years of Precedent Behind Roe v. Wade.”

The Washington Post today contains front page articles headlined “Roberts Avoids Specifics on Abortion Issue; Nominee Distances Himself From Reagan-Era Writings” and “As Questioning Begins, Euphemisms Abound.” Charles Lane has a news analysis headlined “Sounding Less Conservative but Still Noncommittal.” And in related coverage, “Unclear on Abortion, Critics Say.”

The Los Angeles Times reports that “Roberts Is Confronted on Abortion; The chief justice nominee tells a Senate panel he is committed to legal precedent, but doesn’t say how that applies to Roe vs. Wade.” A news analysis is headlined “Roberts Stays Solid Favorite Without Firm Answers; Some may criticize the nominee as evasive, but his remarks aren’t likely to stir more opposition.” And David G. Savage has articles headlined “Roberts Sticks to Script on Abortion Questions; Like other Republican nominees, he declines to say whether he would uphold Roe vs. Wade” and “Roe Ruling: More Than Its Author Intended.”

In The Wall Street Journal, Jeanne Cummings and Jess Bravin report that “Roberts Leaves Fate of Roe Open; Nominee for Chief Justice Embraces Right to Privacy Underlying Abortion Ruling” (pass-through link).

In USA Today, Kathy Kiely and Joan Biskupic have a front page article headlined “Roberts avoids specifics on abortion; Says ‘Roe v. Wade’ is ‘settled as precedent.’” And Joan Biskupic and Toni Locy report that “Roberts proves to be a cool, savvy witness; Keeps composure as Democrats fire away.”

In The Chicago Tribune, Jan Crawford Greenburg reports that “Roberts sidesteps abortion debate; Judge says right to privacy found in Constitution.” And in related coverage, “At hearing, abortion a frustrating issue.”

In The San Francisco Chronicle, Bob Egelko reports that “Roberts parries Democrats’ questions; Nominee acknowledges right to privacy, refuses to reveal his views on abortion.”

The Baltimore Sun contains articles headlined “Roberts: Roe ‘settled as precedent’; But judge resists attempts to elicit personal opinion about prior abortion rulings; Nominee spars with Democrats” and “On abortion issue, Roberts leaves both sides with doubts; Chief justice nominee avoids getting specific about Roe v. Wade.” And a news analysis is headlined “A cool nominee easily sidesteps the hot issues.”

Stephen Henderson and James Kuhnhenn of Knight Ridder Newspapers report that “Abortion a ‘settled precedent,’ Roberts says.”

The Boston Globe reports that “Pressed on Roe, Roberts cites respect for precedent; Avoids firm stance, backs right of privacy” and “Nominee exhibits several deft moves.” And Charlie Savage has an article headlined “Aggrieved, senators probe limits of their power.”

The Washington Times contains articles headlined “Roberts minimizes his role“; “Roberts defends Roe as ‘a precedent’“; “Roberts criticizes foreign law used as precedent“; and “Roberts probed on overturning past rulings.”

Online at law.com, T.R. Goldman and Tony Mauro report that “Roberts Challenged by Democratic Senators.”

In The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Michael McGough and Maeve Reston report that “Roberts fends off abortion questions.” And in related coverage, “Democrats take turns grilling on abortion, other tough issues.”

The Sacramento Bee contains articles headlined “Roberts backs privacy, avoids abortion debate” and “No fireworks displays as Feinstein homes in.”

Newsday reports that “Senators use old memos for questioning.”

The Philadelphia Inquirer reports that “Specter cuts to the case – ‘Roe’; That was his first line of questioning for Roberts.”

The Houston Chronicle reports that “Roberts stays cool as exchanges sizzle; Irked Democrats accuse nominee of skating around abortion questions.”

The St. Petersburg Times reports that “Roberts says that he supports a right to privacy and that the president should follow laws on torture; But Democrats complain there’s plenty he doesn’t say.”

The Dallas Morning News reports that “Roberts dodges specifics; Democrats grill judge on abortion, civil rights.”

The Hartford Courant reports that “Abortion Is Focus As Both Sides Spin Nominee’s Words.”

The St. Louis Post-Dispatch reports that “Roberts rebuffs efforts to pin down his views.”

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reports that “Roberts sees privacy right; But Supreme Court pick remains vague on abortion stance.”

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reports that “Roberts deflects pointed queries.”

The Toronto Globe and Mail reports that “Roe v. Wade ‘settled as a precedent,’ Roberts says; U.S. nominee for chief justice remains cool under tough questioning from senators.”

The San Jose Mercury News reports that “Roberts deflects abortion inquiries.”

The Deseret Morning News reports that “Hatch easy on Roberts: Nominee describes philosophy.”

The New York Sun reports that “Schumer ‘Surprised’ by Judge Roberts.”

The State of Columbia, South Carolina reports that “Graham focuses on character; ‘Greater issue,’ S.C. senator says, is ‘about who you are.’”

The Newark Star-Ledger reports that “Democrats fail to pin down Roberts; Chief justice nominee declines to offer his personal views on volatile issues.”

The Cleveland Plain Dealer reports that “Roberts quizzed on E. Cleveland zoning case.”

The Dayton Daily News reports that “DeWine wants chief justice to take modest role on bench.”

The Harrisburg Patriot-News reports that “Specter avoids direct hit on abortion.”

The Des Moines Register reports that “Grassley asks about perceived role of being justice; The Republican senator from Iowa says the nominee for chief justice is ‘intellectually honest.’”

The Times Argus of Barre, Vermont reports that “Leahy growing frustrated with Roberts.”

The Lawrence (Kan.) Journal-World reports that “Area judges weigh in on confirmation hearings.”

The Harvard Crimson reports that “Senate Committee Questions Roberts.”

BusinessWeek offers a news analysis headlined “Roberts Robes Himself in Pragmatism; The Chief Justice nominee has rejected strict interpretations of the Constitution; That should hearten the Left and Corporate America alike.”

And at “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “Analysis: Some revelations on Day Two.”