“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transmit to the Supreme Court of the United States proposed Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 32.1, which would allow non-precedential rulings to be cited in briefs filed in all U.S. Courts of Appeals.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.”

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.”