In the November 14, 2005 issue of U.S. News & World Report: The magazine will contain articles headlined “Right On: Conservatives got what they wanted in Samuel Alito; He’s no Harriet Miers–and no Sandra Day O’Connor either” and “Senate Gang Could Give Alito a Pass.” In addition, a related item will carry the headline “Great Minds, Not Quite Alike.”
John Leo will have an essay entitled “‘Dangerously Radical.’”
And Marshall Ramsey will have a cartoon on grateful turkeys and Supreme Court nominees.
“Is he going on faith? Judicial nominee Alito favors individual rights in religion-based claims vs. other cases, say observers.” This article will appear in Sunday’s edition of Newsday.
And the Week in Review section of Sunday’s edition of The New York Times will contain an article headlined “Armageddon! Measuring the Power of a New Justice.”
“Alito Respectful of Precedent, Associates Say”: Charles Lane will have this article Sunday in The Washington Post. The article quotes me in the following passage:
Abortion rights advocates say Alito’s 1991 dissenting opinion upholding the Pennsylvania spousal notification statute showed he was willing to push the law in the direction of his own policy preferences.
He was a minority of one on a three-judge panel, and the majority’s view was sustained by the Supreme Court.
But lawyers who know him, noting that his opinion avoided any wider criticism of Roe , see it as his best effort to interpret a murky standard that had been laid out by O’Connor in some previous cases.
“Alito was trying to understand what O’Connor meant,” said Howard Bashman, a Philadelphia appellate attorney who has argued before Alito. “But now she’s said what she meant.”
Bashman recalled one civil rights case in which he represented a prisoner with a highly technical claim on which other appeals courts had reached varying rulings. Alito recognized that the issue was controlled by an existing 3rd Circuit precedent, and dismissed the appeal in what Bashman called “a quick opinion saying they were bound by the prior panel’s opinion. He was not out trying to stir up a hornet’s nest.”
One correction is in order, however. The Third Circuit did not dismiss the appeal — a case in which I had accepted a pro bono appointment from the Third Circuit to represent a state prisoner appealing from the dismissal of his federal civil rights claim — but rather reversed and ruled in my client’s favor, based on a precedential Third Circuit ruling that issued after the appeal that I was handling had been briefed (my Brief for Appellant is available online here) but before it had been submitted for decision.
“The FBI’s Secret Scrutiny; In Hunt for Terrorists, Bureau Examines Records of Ordinary Americans”: This lengthy front page article will appear Sunday in The Washington Post.
“Why Alito’s the Man for the True Conservative Agenda”: John Hinderaker and Paul Mirengoff of the “Power Line” blog will have this essay Sunday in The Washington Post.
“In a Rare Battle, Justices Are Fighting for Their Seats”: This report from Pennsylvania will appear Sunday in The New York Times.
“Bush says Alito belongs on court; President accepts starting date for hearing”: This article appears today in The Newark (N.J.) Star-Ledger, along with an article headlined “State abortion foes withhold support of Alito nomination; Groups believe several rulings ‘are not pro-life.’”
The Boston Globe reports today that “Alito remarks backed strong presidential powers.”
The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review reports that “Alito favors authority.”
And The Trentonian contains an article headlined “Media circus overwhelms mom” that begins, “The 90-year-old mother of Samuel A. Alito Jr., whom President Bush recently nominated to the U.S. Supreme Court, has become a celebrity in her own right.”
In commentary, The Philadelphia Inquirer today contains an editorial entitled “Alito and the Vanguard Case: A question of judgment.”
The Topeka Capital-Journal contains an op-ed by Bill Roy entitled “History has shown that justices can grow.”
And The Bangor Daily News contains an op-ed by Sean Faircloth entitled “Alito’s world worth rejecting.”
“Fuzzy and Harriet: Would Miers have been a good justice? It’s unclear.” In Sunday’s issue of The Washington Post, columnist Gene Weingarten will have an essay that begins, “Before initiating the writing of a newspaper column in which the implementation of a plan of humor is to be effectuated, the prioritization of goal-oriented objectives is warranted so as to rhetorically establish, by effective utilization of satirical example, that Harriet Miers writes this way.”
“Chief Justices from 43 countries coming for meeting”: This article appears in Sunday’s edition of The Manila Bulletin.
“Our incompetent government — Terrorism, hurricanes, bird flu: Can Washington really protect us?” Seventh Circuit Judge Richard A. Posner will have this essay in the November 14, 2005 issue of The New Republic.
“Supreme Court Nominee Seen as Favoring Federal Constraint”: Neil A. Lewis will have this article in Sunday’s edition of The New York Times.
Today’s edition of that newspaper, meanwhile, contains an article headlined “A Pro-Bug Vote on the Court?” focusing on Declan McCullagh’s recent article headlined “Nominee’s past rulings give hint of tech views” at c|net News.com.
“Bush tries to sell Americans on Alito”: Reuters provides this report on the radio address that President Bush delivered this morning.
“Judge tosses a blanket on topless protest; Breasts Not Bombs told nudity not part of free-speech rights”: This article appears today in The San Francisco Chronicle.
The Sacramento Bee is reporting: In today’s newspaper, an article reports that “Topless Capitol protest banned; U.S. judge rejects First Amendment argument by Breasts Not Bombs.”
Today’s newspaper also contains a front page article headlined “They can’t vote, but teens sound off on Prop. 73.” According to the article, “The measure would amend the state constitution to require a waiting period, as well as parental notification or a judge’s waiver, before a minor could obtain an abortion.”
Yesterday’s newspaper reported that “War protesters sue for right to bare breasts; A hearing is set over CHP warning that nudity at a Capitol rally will lead to arrests.”
And yesterday’s newspaper also contained an article headlined “Fired Loretto teacher files complaints; She says her ouster was discrimination, violating her free-speech rights” that begins, “A former Loretto High School drama teacher alleged Thursday that her firing last month for having volunteered at a Planned Parenthood clinic was a case of sexual and religious discrimination and violated her free-speech rights.”
In today’s edition of The Los Angeles Times: Henry Weinstein reports that “Alito’s Findings for Employers Cited as Evidence; Opponents point to the Supreme Court nominee’s decisions in discrimination cases.”
In news from Sacramento, “If Topless, They’ll Be Busted; Peace group’s members are told to keep shirts on at Capitol or they might be deemed sex offenders.”
A front page article is headlined “The Case of Behe vs. Darwin: An unassuming biochemist who became the lead witness for intelligent design is unfazed by criticism but glad he has tenure.”
And an article is headlined “Eligible to Vote in Arizona? Prove It; A new law requires evidence of citizenship; Thousands of legal residents are in a bind.”
“Senators Praise Nominee’s Candor; Alito Shows Willingness to Discuss Controversial Issues Facing Supreme Court”: This article appears today in The Washington Post.
In commentary from today’s edition of The Wall Street Journal: Via OpinionJournal, you can access online an editorial entitled “Abortion and the Law: What would a world without Roe look like?” And James Taranto has an op-ed entitled “Pro-Wife Extremism: Judge Alito was right on spousal notification.”
