In commentary: Today at National Review Online, Byron York has an essay entitled “Alito: A Last-Gasp Democratic Gambit Fails; What’s in the Concerned Alumni of Princeton papers? Nothing.” In addition, Spencer Abraham has an essay entitled “The Anti-Alito Coalition: The Left courts its agenda.”

And online at The Nation, Bruce Shapiro has an essay entitled “Alito Almanac: Right-wing Revelation.”

Yoo don’t say: It’s as though the subject of this blog’s newest Blogad was just being discussed at today’s Senate Judiciary Committee hearing. According to the testimony, Judge Alito hasn’t read that book yet, so perhaps it would make a nice confirmation present.

On today’s broadcast of NPR‘s “Morning Edition“: This morning’s broadcast contained segments entitled “Senate Panel to Wrap Questioning of Alito” (featuring Nina Totenberg); “A Future Legal Battleground: Environmental Regulation“; and “Why Not a Court of Average People?”

Is it murder if the person killed agreed to be murdered? BBC News reports that “German cannibal back for retrial” and “Cannibal fights new legal battles.”

Reuters reports that “German cannibal retried on renewed murder charge.”

Bloomberg News reports that “Convicted German Cannibal May Get Harsher Sentence.”

The Telegraph (UK) reports that “German cannibal faces retrial for murder.”

Newsday provides a report headlined “Retrial in cannibalism case.”

Deutsche Welle reports that “German Courts Want Stiffer Sentence for Cannibal.”

United Press International reports that “German cannibal sues to stop film, song.”

The Mirror (UK) previously reviewed the background of the case here.

“Senators Take Last Turn to Question Alito”: Jesse J. Holland of The Associated Press provides a report that begins, “An examination of hundreds of documents from the founder of a controversial college alumni group found no mention of Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee said Thursday.”

Day four of the confirmation hearing for U.S. Supreme Court nominee Samuel A. Alito, Jr. is scheduled to begin at 9:00 a.m. eastern time: Click here to watch in RealPlayer via C-SPAN. The committee’s live video feed is here (RealPlayer). And National Public Radio is streaming online live audio coverage at this link (RealPlayer).

The Washington Post provides live blogging here. The New York Times provides live blogging here. And “SCOTUSblog” is also live-blogging the hearing.

Once Judge Alito leaves the hot-seat, the committee will hear today from other witnesses. Today’s witness list can be found at this link. The witness list indicates that the second panel to testify after Judge Alito’s testimony wraps-up will consist of the seven current and former Third Circuit Judges whom I recently profiled here. And in related coverage, law.com’s Tony Mauro today has a report headlined “3rd Circuit Judges to Testify on Alito’s Behalf.”

“Sen. Biden Suggests Scrapping Hearings”: The Associated Press provides a report that begins, “Supreme Court nominees are so mum about the major legal issues at their Senate confirmation hearings that the hearings serve little purpose and should probably be abandoned, Democratic Sen. Joe Biden said Thursday.”

“Meaningless charade: The moribund hearings have been as predictable as a Kabuki drama; Barring a major miscue, Alito’s inscrutability will carry him to the Supreme Court.” Michael Scherer has this essay today at Salon.com.

“For ‘Roe,’ trials out of court; Dallas plaintiff in ’73 abortion case struggles to make ends meet”: The Dallas Morning News contains this article today.

And in related news, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reports today that “‘Mary Doe’ rebuffed in effort to overturn ruling.”

“Alito Remains Unruffled in Testy Hearings; Democrats focus on abortion and his ties to a conservative alumni group; A GOP senator apologizes for what he calls unfair insinuations”: This article appears today in The Los Angeles Times. David G. Savage has an article headlined “Divided Along Roe vs. Wade: Senators wrestle with the question of whether the landmark abortion ruling is ‘settled law’; The high court nominee remains noncommittal.” In related coverage, “Alito’s Membership in Alumni Group Is Under Scrutiny” and “Senators Seize on Hearing as Sounding Board; The line of questioning for Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr. retreads ground but few lawmakers pass up the chance to get their agenda on camera.” And Law Professor Mark V. Tushnet has an op-ed entitled “Is a judicial ‘agenda’ always so bad? Senators should get beyond platitudes about the ‘rule of law’ and look at a nominee’s constitutional vision.”

The New York Times today contains articles headlined “From the Left, Calls to Press Alito Harder” and “An Intense Experience for Family Members, Too.” An editorial is entitled “Judge Alito, in His Own Words.” And columnist David Brooks has an op-ed entitled “Losing the Alitos” (TimesSelect subscription required).

The Washington Post reports that “Alito Disavows Controversial Group; Nominee Touted His Membership in 1985.”

The State of Columbia, South Carolina contains an article headlined “Graham’s defense makes judge’s wife cry; S.C. senator’s remarks follow hard questions about character from Democrats.”

USA Today reports that “Nerves fray at Alito hearing; Democrats turn up heat on Supreme Court nominee.” And an editorial is entitled “The Alito spectacle: From senators, too much talk, too little listening.”

In The Chicago Tribune, Jill Zuckman and Jan Crawford Greenburg reports that “Democrats take more aggressive tone at Alito confirmation hearings.”

The Houston Chronicle reports that “Senators fail to pin Alito down on abortion; He refuses to say Roe is settled law, or if abortion is a right protected by the Constitution.”

In The Boston Globe, Charlie Savage reports that “Nominee splits hairs on ‘privacy rights’; Parries questions on Roe v. Wade.” An article reports that “Democrats turn up heat against Alito; Critics grill nominee on abortion stance.” And columnist Joan Vennochi has an op-ed entitled “Senate’s swirling winds.”

In The San Francisco Chronicle, Bob Egelko reports that “Dems given more time to question Alito; They’re skeptical about memory lapse on alumni group.”

Michael McGough of The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reports that “Alito again rebuffs abortion questions.”

The Newark (N.J.) Star-Ledger contains articles headlined “Day of accusations and tears; Democrats press Alito on a past membership, and his upset wife flees hearing room“; “Princeton group had troubling attitudes; Group opposed women, minorities“; and “Bending the judge’s ear; Senators are lobbying Alito as well as interrogating him.” And columnist Bob Braun has an op-ed entitled “No judge, Alito included, lives by rule of law alone.”

The Denver Post reports that “Democrats grill Alito over Princeton club; The group worried in the 1970s that too many minorities were being admitted; The Supreme Court nominee said he didn’t remember whether he was a member.”

Newsday contains an article headlined “Hard questioning: Tensions run high in second day, as Alito says Roe v. Wade is still in play, senators clash over subpoenas.”

The St. Louis Post-Dispatch reports that “Alito’s membership in alumni group causes furor.”

The Washington Times contains articles headlined “Alito accused of racism” and “Congresswomen deem Alito unfit.” And David Limbaugh has an op-ed entitled “Extreme angst ambuscade.”

The Des Moines Register contains an article headlined “Grassley: Stop ‘dead horse’ questioning.”

The Deseret Morning News reports that “Hatch tries to protect judge amid fierce Demo questions; Key points are about ethics, Princeton group membership.”

law.com’s Tony Mauro reports that “3rd Circuit Judges to Testify on Alito’s Behalf.”

Bloomberg News reports that “Alito’s Testimony Nears End as Senate Partisan Lines Stiffen.” And columnist Margaret Carlson has an essay entitled “Fear of Borking Lets Alito Coast on Bromides.”

The Herald-Sun of Durham, North Carolina reports that “UNC prof to testify at today’s Alito hearing.”

The Daily Tar Heel reports that “Senate calls on local academics; Two to engage in today’s Alito hearing.”

The Trenton Times reports that “Hamilton high-schoolers are friendlier faces.”

And The (W. Va.) State Journal reports that “Former Alito Clerks Defend His Work as Advocate.”

“Judging the judge’s judges”: Today in The San Francisco Chronicle, columnist Debra J. Saunders has an op-ed that begins, “If by some bizarre twist of fate, the Senate fails to confirm Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr.’s nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court, I have a suggestion for President Bush’s next pick: Ted Kennedy.”

The Wall Street Journal today contains an editorial entitled “Senate Civility: Why Mrs. Alito left the room.” And Peggy Noonan has an op-ed entitled “Biden His Time: Judge Alito’s low-affect tour de force.”

“A Fault Line for ‘Intelligent Design'”: This article appears today in The Los Angeles Times.

“Justices Restore Death Sentence; The Supreme Court overturns the 9th Circuit in the case of a Bakersfield man”: Henry Weinstein has this article today in The Los Angeles Times.

“A 1986 Case Could Aid Appeals Along Death Row”: Linda Greenhouse has this article today in The New York Times.

Today in USA Today, Joan Biskupic reports that “Justices debate case of condemned inmate; Tenn. man wants new hearing, DNA tests examined.”

The Houston Chronicle reports that “Death penalty appeal raises questions of DNA evidence; Justices to decide what standards for witnesses and genetic data would require a new trial.”

And The Tennessean reports that “Justices spar over Tenn. case; Death row appeal tests standards to reopen cases.”