“Judiciary Panel May Ask Dobson to Testify; Evangelical Leader Says He Has Been Privy to Miers’s View”: This article will appear Monday in The Washington Post.

“This is going to be hard to watch”: Today in The St. Petersburg Times, columnist Philip Gailey has an op-ed in which he writes, “The way things have been going, Miers risks not only rejection by the Senate but humiliation by her critics.”

“Republicans, Democrats confounded by Miers’ nomination”: James Kuhnhenn of Knight Ridder Newspapers provides this report.

Reuters reports that “Lawmakers say Bush likely to stick with Miers.”

And Bloomberg News reports that “Miers’s Nomination Hinges on Outcome of Hearing, Senators Say.”

“So when did our own Sam Brownback get to be a rock star?” So begins an article published today in The Kansas City Star under the headline “In the limelight, he’s getting satisfaction; Kansan’s growing prominence feeds into his political importance.”

“Unwise Counsel: Why was the White House so unprepared for the Miers flak?” Glenn Harlan Reynolds has this op-ed today at OpinionJournal.

“Dissatisfaction with Miers only increases”: The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette contains this news analysis today.

Today in The Orange County Register, Dena Bunis has a news analysis headlined “Miers nomination process has many heads spinning.”

The Los Angeles Times reports that “Democrats Keep Mum on Miers Nomination; For now, they are willing to let the Republicans fight among themselves over Bush’s court pick.”

In The Houston Chronicle, Clay Robison has an essay entitled “A little Texas hindsight into Miers’ nomination.”

In The Arizona Republic, columnist Doug MacEachern has an op-ed entitled “Harriet Miers, a time bomb for conservative progress.”

In The Washington Times, Tom Bray has an op-ed entitled “Judicial philosophy high score.”

In The Oakland Tribune, Byron Williams has an op-ed entitled “Cronyism aside, Miers should do her homework.”

In The San Francisco Chronicle, Martin F. Nolan has an op-ed entitled “Miers takes the heat as Bush’s ratings fall; President’s fair-weather friends rise from their armchairs and turn on his nominee.”

In The Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, Bradley R. Gitz has an op-ed entitled “Time for a do-over.”

And in The News Journal of Wilmington, Delaware, Lorraine Woellert has an op-ed entitled “Big business has lot to like about Miers.”

“Another elevation from Texas Supreme Court? Nathan Hecht, Harriet Miers’ No. 1 fan, may well be a favorite for the federal bench.” This article appears today in The Houston Chronicle.

“A quest supreme: Is constitutional pragmatism a recipe for restraint or activism; A biography of Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor and a book by Justice Stephen Breyer frame the issue — and the stakes.” Law Professor Jeffrey Rosen has this book review today in The Los Angeles Times.

“What Miers must show”: Law Professor Charles Fried has this op-ed today in The Boston Globe.

“Bush and Miers: A Tale of Missteps.” Columnist David S. Broder has this op-ed today in The Washington Post.

“Schumer: Miers Lacks Votes to Be Confirmed.” Hope Yen of The Associated Press provides this report.

“Commerce and Religion Collide on a Mountainside”: This article appears today in The New York Times.

“How To Lose Friends”: The October 31, 2005 issue of Time will contain a Notebook item that begins, “Harriet Miers can ill afford to lose any more support.”

“The Gathering Storm: How Katrina hurt Harriet—and what’s next for the embattled high-court nominee.” This article will appear in the October 31, 2005 issue of Newsweek.

“Sensenbrenner Introduces Legislation Providing For Additional Federal Judgeships and a Realignment of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals”: The chairman of the House Judiciary Committee issued this news advisory this past Thursday. You can access the text of the Federal Judgeship and Administrative Efficiency Act of 2005 at this link.

“Breyer’s big idea: The Justice’s vision for a progressive revival on the Supreme Court.” Jeffrey Toobin will have this “Annals of Law” essay in the October 31, 2005 issue of The New Yorker.

“Miers family received ‘excessive’ sum in land case”: Jack Douglas Jr. and Stephen Henderson of Knight Ridder Newspapers provide a report that begins:

Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers collected more than 10 times the market value for a small slice of family-owned land in a large Superfund pollution cleanup site in Dallas where the state wanted to build a highway off-ramp.

The windfall came after a judge who received thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from Miers’ law firm appointed a close professional associate of Miers and an outspoken property-rights activist to the three-person panel that determined how much the state should pay.

And in related coverage, The Associated Press provides an article headlined “Report: Texas Overpaid Miers in Land Sale.”

“After prisoner’s abortion, Blunt expresses frustration”: The St. Louis Post-Dispatch contains this article today.

And The Kansas City Star reports today that “Inmate in Missouri receives abortion.”

“Court Nominee Backed Minority Program for Bar Leadership”: This article will appear Sunday in The New York Times.

Controversy over how Supreme Court Justices are selected, in Kansas: The Topeka Capital-Journal today reports that “Selection of justices up in air; Committee sends matter to Legislature.”

And The Lawrence Journal-World reports today that “Judicial selection question up in air.”

The Honolulu Advertiser is reporting: Today’s newspaper contains articles headlined “Dozing juror fails to bring new trial” and “Akaka bill remains on back burner.”

“New justices’ stances on schools unknown; Court may soon hear cases on issues including prayer, military recruitment”: The UCLA Daily Bruin published this article earlier this month.

“To defend academia, keep fighting Solomon”: This editorial appeared yesterday in The Yale Daily News.

Earlier this week, the American Forces Press Service reported that “Supreme Court to Hear Case on Military Recruiters’ Access to Colleges.”

The Harvard Crimson earlier this month reported that “Experts Debate Army Recruiters; Two law professors argue the constitutinality of the Solomon Amendment.”

“Newsview: Miers Backers Having Tough Time.” The Associated Press provides this report.

Available online from National Public Radio: Today’s broadcast of “Weekend Edition – Saturday” contained a segment entitled “Do High Court Justices Need Term Limits?” (featuring Stuart Taylor Jr.).

And yesterday’s broadcast of “All Things Considered” contained a segment entitled “Doubts Arise Over Miers’ Readiness for Hearings” (featuring Nina Totenberg).

RealPlayer is required to launch these audio segments.

“U.S. appeals court denies RIM’s request; Company wants Supreme Court to review patent infringement case”: This article appears today in The Toronto Globe and Mail.

The New York Times reports today that “Federal Appeals Court Refuses to Impede BlackBerry Lawsuit.”

And Reuters reports that “RIM ruling risks US Blackberry shutdown.”

“Anti-abortion mother got teacher ousted”: The Sacramento Bee today contains a front page article that begins, “The mother of a Loretto High School student obtained photographs that exposed a drama teacher as a former Planned Parenthood volunteer, a revelation that led to the teacher’s firing last week. It wasn’t the first time Wynette Sills raised her anti-abortion views on the all-female, private Catholic campus.”

“Miers falls flat with scholars; Experts cite an error that might be a misunderstanding of constitutional law or perhaps a ‘brain freeze'”: This article appears today in The St. Petersburg Times.

The Chicago Tribune reports today that “Miers’ ex-firm paid in malpractice suits; Law firm she led settled 3 claims for at least $30 million.”

Holly Yeager and Patti Waldmeir of Financial Times report today that “Miers nomination ‘relaunch’ fails to pacify conservatives.”

The Dallas Morning News contains articles headlined “Voting rights fight a Miers highlight; Her stance evolved as she considered new information, circumstances“; “Business leaders say Miers would add new perspective“; and “Ex-Texas bar chiefs back Miers; They travel to D.C. to indicate support for troubled nomination.”

The Houston Chronicle reports that “Former bar chiefs from Texas defend Miers’ attributes; White House denies nominee will end courtesy calls to senators to focus on hearings.”

The Fort Worth Star-Telegram reports that “Texas lawyers travel to D.C. to support Miers.”

The Lafayette (La.) Daily Advertiser reports that “Locals weigh in on Miers.”

The State Journal-Register of Springfield, Illinois reports that “Schlafly speaks to local group, criticizes Miers.”

And The Lawrence (Kan.) Journal-World reports that “Students protest against Miers.”

In commentary, online at OpinionJournal, Melanie Kirkpatrick has an essay entitled “‘I Don’t Think She’s Going to Be Withdrawn’: Arlen Specter talks about the Harriet Miers nomination.”

In The Washington Times, Terence P. Jeffrey has an op-ed entitled “Self-imposed Borking.” And Wesley Pruden has an essay entitled “Maybe it’s time for a little peace.”

And in The Austin American-Statesman, columnist Bruce Hight has an op-ed entitled “If Miers falters, what Texan might step up?”

“Defending The Indefensible”: Tomorrow in The Washington Post, columnist George F. Will will have an op-ed that begins, “Such is the perfect perversity of the nomination of Harriet Miers that it discredits, and even degrades, all who toil at justifying it. Many of their justifications cannot be dignified as arguments. Of those that can be, some reveal a deficit of constitutional understanding commensurate with that which it is, unfortunately, reasonable to impute to Miers. Other arguments betray a gross misunderstanding of conservatism on the part of persons masquerading as its defenders.”

“Harsher gay-sex sentence rejected; ‘Romeo and Juliet’ exemption struck”: This article appears today in The Kansas City Star.

And The Topeka Capital-Journal today contains an article headlined “Court’s ‘Romeo and Juliet’ ruling criticized; Lawmakers want restraints placed on justices” that begins, “The Kansas Supreme Court on Friday continued to receive bad reviews from state lawmakers, fueling more calls to put limits on its power. On the heels of a new decision in a high-profile sodomy case, two high-ranking state lawmakers criticized the court for sending mixed messages over the past year. They also said the justices are infringing on the Legislature’s turf.”

The Los Angeles Times is reporting: David G. Savage reports that “Miers’ Answer Raises Questions; Legal experts find a misuse of terms in her Senate questionnaire ‘terrible’ and ‘shocking.’”

And Maura Reynolds reports that “Conservative Organizes Campaign Against Nominee.”

“Bias Ruled in Law On Same-Sex Rape; Court Cites Inequities in Kansas Statute”: Charles Lane will have this article Saturday in The Washington Post.

And Saturday in The New York Times, Adam Liptak will report that “Kansas Law on Gay Sex by Teenagers Is Overturned.”

“Insiders see hint of Miers pullout”: Saturday’s edition of The Washington Times will contain this article.

Saturday’s edition of The Chicago Tribune will report that “Judiciary Committee interested in malpractice suits at Miers’ firm.”

And The Washington Post on Saturday will report that “Miers Is Asked About Role in ’98 Campaign.”

Perhaps elitist judges look better in those wigs? The blog “Have Opinion, Will Travel” has a post titled “Elitism in appointing British-judges?” that links to an article headlined “Oxbridge ‘advantage’ for judges; The Lord Chancellor denies being influenced by the educational background of candidates for the Bench” published in yesterday’s edition of The Times of London.

“Commentary: The Court’s caseload.” Lyle Denniston has this post online at “SCOTUSblog.”