“Alito No Swinger, Face Reader Says”: A press release that you can access here begins, “Ever notice the huge change to Alito’s right ear since he was at Princeton? It’s ominous for Democrats, according to face reader Rose Rosetree. While at Princeton, Alito’s ear was out-angled–reminiscent of Supreme Court Justice Souter. But faces change over time more than most people realize, depending on inner choices, and Alito’s ear is now in-angled, suggesting more conservative and predictable choices, should he be appointed to America’s Highest Court.”
“Detainee Case Hits on Limits of Presidency”: Tuesday in The New York Times, Linda Greenhouse will have an article that begins, “When the Supreme Court agreed two months ago to hear an appeal from a Yemeni detainee at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, named Salim Ahmed Hamdan, it was evident that an important test of the limits of presidential authority to conduct the war on terror was under way. Now that the final briefs have begun to arrive at the court, in advance of a late March argument, the dimensions of that test appear greater than ever.”
“Alito Says Judges Shouldn’t Bring Agenda to Cases”: This article will appear Tuesday in The New York Times, along with an article headlined “Cheers Outside and Senators’ Lectures Inside.” In addition, Adam Liptak will have an article headlined “A Quick Focus on the Powers of a President.” A news analysis will carry the headline “Partisan Tenor of Alito Hearing Reflects a Quick Change in Washington.” And columnist John Tierney will have an op-ed entitled “Men’s Abortion Rights” (TimesSelect subscription required).
Tuesday’s edition of The Washington Post will contain a front page article headlined “Alito Stresses ‘Rule of Law’ in Opening Statement; Senate Questioning Of Supreme Court Pick Begins Today.” A news analysis will report that “Despite Advocacy, Nominee Not on Public’s Radar Screen.” And Dana Milbank’s “Washington Sketch” column will carry the headline “Bipartisan Agreement: Roberts Was Just Terrific.”
Maura Reynolds and David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times provide a news update headlined “Battle Lines Are Drawn at Opening of Alito Hearings.”
In Tuesday’s edition of The Chicago Tribune, Jan Crawford Greenburg will report that “Alito pledges to respect rule of law.”
In Tuesday’s edition of Financial Times, Patti Waldmeir reports that “Alito on defensive over political stance.” The newspaper also contains an editorial entitled “Evaluating Alito.”
Tuesday’s edition of The Telegraph (UK) reports that “Democrats attack White House ‘stooge’ Alito.”
Newsday on Tuesday will report that “Alito plays up humble roots.”
The St. Louis Post-Dispatch will report on Tuesday that “Judge’s obligation is to the rule of law, Alito tells senators.”
law.com’s Tony Mauro reports that “At Confirmation Hearing, Alito Says Judge Should Have No Agenda.”
The Daily Princetonian provides a news update headlined “Alito says his obligation is to ‘rule of law’; As senators stake out positions, nominee speaks publicly of his Princeton experience.”
This evening’s broadcast of the PBS program “The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer” contained a segment entitled “The Alito Hearings” (transcript with link to audio).
In Tuesday’s edition of USA Today, Law Professor Jonathan Turley will have an op-ed entitled “Troubling times, a troubling nominee.”
And at Salon.com, Walter Shapiro has an essay entitled “Boring, but not scary: Samuel Alito came across as wimpy, but he didn’t reveal any weird Bork-like tendencies; He’s well on his way to joining a rightward-leaning high court.”
“Court Upholds Man’s Mandatory Sentence”: The Associated Press provides a report that begins, “A federal appeals court on Monday upheld the mandatory 55-year prison sentence given to a man convicted of carrying a handgun during three marijuana deals. The three-judge panel of the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the sentence was constitutional because it reflected Congress’ intent to severely punish crimes involving drugs and guns.”
Today’s ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit in United States v. Weldon Angelos can be accessed here.
In Tuesday’s edition of The Christian Science Monitor: Tomorrow’s newspaper will contain articles headlined “Ad war at full blast as Alito hearings begin; Interest groups target specific states and take to the Internet to make their case for or against confirmation” and “Jury duty is for Everyman – and some presidents.”
“Alito–Day One”: Law Professor Douglas W. Kmiec has this post at National Review Online’s “Bench Memos.”
And also via “Bench Memos,” yesterday in The Grand Rapids Press, Conor Dugan had an op-ed entitled “A law clerk’s view of Alito.”
“Most Popular Law Blogs”: In an unvarnished (but thus far successful) effort to become more popular, “Opinio Juris” provides this post.
Meanwhile, it has been revealed that I’m not the anonymous editor of “Blawg Review.” It’s a relief having that confirmed.
“Bush’s nominee faces tough Senate grilling; Alito expected to gain supreme court place; Democrats attack views on privacy and abortion”: This article appears Tuesday in The Guardian (UK).
Jill Zuckman of The Chicago Tribune provides a news update headlined “Senators feel the pressure over Court nominee.”
The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel provides a news update headlined “Feingold raises concerns about Alito.”
The Fort Worth Star-Telegram provides a news update headlined “Cornyn touts religious expression.”
And The Associated Press provides reports headlined “Schumer calls Alito record ‘quite extreme’” and “Lautenberg, Whitman give Alito warm introduction to committee.”
“Alito Goes a Long Way: But He’s Still No John Roberts.” Dahlia Lithwick has this confirmation report online at Slate.
“Judge ‘can’t have an agenda,’ Alito says on 1st day of hearings”: Stephen Henderson and James Kuhnhenn of Knight Ridder Newspapers provide this report.
Available online from National Public Radio: This evening’s broadcast of “All Things Considered” contained segments entitled “Alito Begins High Court Confirmation Hearings” (featuring Nina Totenberg); “Analysis of Alito’s Confirmation Hearings” (featuring Law Professors Douglas Kmiec and Jeffrey Rosen); and “U.S. Wiretaps Program May Prompt Legal Appeals.”
And today’s broadcast of “Day to Day” contained segments entitled “Alito Confirmation Hearings Get Under Way” and “Politics with Ron Elving: Alito, DeLay.”
“Supreme Court to Weigh DNA in Capital Case”: The Associated Press provides this report.
Relatedly, in this week’s issue of The National Law Journal, Law Professors Brandon L. Garrett and Jason M. Solomon have an essay entitled “Death Penalty Cases: Judging innocence.”
“Analysis: Kaiser on Alito Hearings; First Day of Hearings for Supreme Court Nominee Samuel Alito.” You can access here a transcript of an online chat hosted earlier this evening at washingtonpost.com.
Blawg Review #39: Available online here at “Adam Smith, Esq.”
“Analysis: Abortion Shares Alito Spotlight.” The Associated Press provides this report.
Access online a transcript of today’s Senate Judiciary Committee hearing: Via The Washington Post, you can access the transcript online in two parts: part one; part two.
Similarly, via C-SPAN, you can view the hearing online, on-demand in two parts: part one; part two (RealPlayer required).
“Alito to Senate: Judges Can’t Have Agenda.” Jesse J. Holland of The Associated Press provides this updated report.
And from CNN.com, “Alito: Only obligation is ‘the rule of law’; Abortion, executive power expected to be key issues at hearings.”
“We conclude that the district court erred in subjecting Jones Day to the discovery obligations of a party under Rule 34(b) and by transferring blame for the City’s errors to its former counsel.” A unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit today issued this opinion, written by Circuit Judge Terence T. Evans.
Third Circuit Judge Samuel A. Alito, Jr. is now beginning his opening statement to the Senate Judiciary Committee: Via C-SPAN, you can view the statement live, online by clicking here (RealPlayer required).
Update: And, at the conclusion of Judge Alito’s statement at 3:39 p.m., the hearing has adjourned until tomorrow at 9:30 a.m.
“Alito and the Ted Kennedy ‘Study’: The Democratic senator bases his charges on a very wobbly foundation.” National Review Online has just posted this essay by Byron York.
Gina Holland of The Associated Press is reporting: Now available online are articles headlined “Justices Hear Arguments in Police Search” and “Supreme Court Rejects CIA Officer’s Appeal.”
“Kennedy on Alito”: This segment (RealPlayer required) appeared on today’s broadcast of the public radio program “Here & Now.”
In news from Albania: Reuters reports that “It’s hemp, court tells cops — again.”
“Alito’s Family by His Side”: The Associated Press provides this report.
No delay or dismissal for DeLay: The Associated Press provides this report. Today’s orders of the Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, that State’s highest court in criminal cases, can be viewed at this link.
“Create an e-annoyance, go to jail”: At c|net News.com, Declan McCullagh has a report that begins, “Annoying someone via the Internet is now a federal crime.” Thanks to “Objective Justice” for the pointer.
The Associated Press is reporting from the U.S. Supreme Court: In additional coverage of today’s Order List, “Court Lets Univ. of Texas Block Spam” and “High Court Nixes Tobacco Co. Tax Case.”
“Senate Opens Alito Nomination Hearings”: Jesse J. Holland of The Associated Press provides this report.
Where to watch and read real-time coverage of the U.S. Supreme Court confirmation hearing for Samuel A. Alito, Jr.: Although the hearing isn’t scheduled to begin until noon eastern time, C-SPAN‘s coverage is underway now. Click here to watch in RealPlayer. The committee’s live video feed is here (RealPlayer). And National Public Radio is also expected to stream online live audio coverage (update: here’s the link in RealPlayer format).
The Washington Post is promising live blogging here. The New York Times is also promising live blogging, but the link isn’t available yet (update: here’s the link). And “SCOTUSblog” is also promising to live-blog the hearings.
In commentary: The St. Petersburg Times today contains an editorial entitled “The Alito hearings: Judge Samuel Alito’s position on Roe vs. Wade should not be the focus of this week’s proceedings, but rather his views on executive power.”
The Dallas Morning News today contains an editorial entitled “Judge Alito’s Turn: Five questions for the Supreme Court nominee.”
The Des Moines Register contains an editorial entitled “Probe Alito’s views on the Constitution; Make hearings a national discussion of legal principles.”
The Mobile Register contains an editorial entitled “Liberals shame selves by tactics vs. Alito.”
The Austin American-Statesman contains an editorial entitled “Abortion isn’t the only issue.”
The Rocky Mountain News contains an editorial entitled “Alito personifies judicial restraint; Barring surprise, he deserves confirmation.”
The Denver Post contains an editorial entitled “Alito confirmation hearings.”
The Rochester (N.Y.) Democrat and Chronicle contains an editorial entitled “Alito’s moment: Keep nasty politics away from Supreme Court hearings.”
The Cincinnati Enquirer contains an editorial entitled “Alito merits intense but fair hearings.”
The San Antonio Express-News contains an editorial entitled “Barring big shocker, Alito merits approval.”
The Palm Beach Post contains an editorial entitled “Awaiting Alito’s answers on wiretaps, voting rights.”
The Detroit News contains an editorial entitled “Alito shouldn’t apologize for being a conservative; Democrats threaten to demonize Bush’s court nominee.”
And The Arkansas Democrat-Gazette contains an amusing editorial entitled “Full court press: Sam Alito’s allies hit the hustings.”
“Senators to press Alito about executive powers”: This front page article appears today in The Sacramento Bee.
Available online from Slate: Bruce Reed’s “The Has-Been” offers a post titled “Straight Man: Laughter is the best medicine; Too bad Sam Alito studied law.”
And Rachael Larimore and Dahlia Lithwick have a jurisprudence essay entitled “Your Witness, Senators: Expert suggestions on cross-examining Sam Alito.”
Chat online at washingtonpost.com with Jo Becker and Dale Russakoff, the reporters who wrote that newspaper’s detailed, two-part profile of Judge Alito: The chat is scheduled to begin now and can be accessed here. The two-part profile, which began in yesterday’s newspaper and concludes in today’s, is available online at the following links: part one; part two.
The op-ed page of The New York Times has more questions for Alito than it had for Roberts: When the Senate Judiciary Committee was beginning its hearing on the nomination of John G. Roberts, Jr. to be Chief Justice of the United States, contributors to the newspaper’s op-ed page could only muster a total of twenty-five questions.
Today, by contrast, Third Circuit Judge Samuel A. Alito, Jr. awoke to a NYTimes op-ed page posing a total of “Thirty Questions for Alito.” Those thirty questions consist of: “Finality and Fallibility,” by Leonard A. Leo; “Your Beliefs, Your Decisions,” by Cheryl D. Mills; “Secrets Hidden in the Text,” by Kenji Yoshino; “Is America at War?,” by John Yoo; “Back to Bush v. Gore,” by Scott Turow; and “A Constitution of Contradictions,” by Stanley Fish.
“The 9/11 Constitution: Can Presidents wage war without Congress?” In the January 16, 2006 issue of The New Republic, Law Professor Cass R. Sunstein has this review (pass-through link) of Law Professor John C. Yoo‘s new book, “The Powers of War and Peace: The Constitution and Foreign Affairs After 9/11.”
Relatedly, The University of Chicago Press — that book’s publisher — offers a transcript of an interview with Yoo about the book.
