Congressional Research Service reports: Now available online are recently-issued CRS reports entitled “Supreme Court Nominations, 1789 – 2005: Actions by the Senate, the Judiciary Committee, and the President” and “The Environmental Opinions of Judge Samuel Alito.”

“What’s the Future of Sentencing?” That’s the subject of this week’s “Debate Club” feature at legalaffairs.org. Law Professors Douglas Berman and Frank O. Bowman III are this week’s participants.

Available online from National Public Radio: Today’s broadcast of “Morning Edition” contained segments entitled “Debate Heats Up over Executive Powers” and “Court Throws Out Florida School Voucher Program.”

Yesterday’s broadcast of “All Things Considered” contained a segment entitled “A Princeton University Student, on Alito’s Trail.”

And yesterday’s broadcast of “Weekend Edition – Sunday” contained a segment entitled “The Courts and Politics.”

RealPlayer is required to launch these audio segments.

My “new voice” sounds suspiciously similar to my “old voice”: law.com is promoting the official launch tomorrow of my brand new, weekly appellate-related column. So, those of you visiting law.com sites or law.com blog affiliates may see this ad. Week one of my column appeared here; week two, bearing tomorrow’s date, is here; and week three’s column remains trapped in my brain but hopes to escape onto paper sometime soon for publication next Monday.

Generally speaking, the column will appear online at law.com on Friday night bearing the next Monday’s date. Please feel free to suggest, via email, appellate-related topics for me to write about. While I haven’t run out of ideas quite yet, moving from a monthly to a weekly column all but assures that I will find myself without anything to say four times as often.

“‘Three strikes’ changes sought; Los Angeles DA wants a ballot measure to clarify the rules for felonies that trigger life terms”: The Sacramento Bee today contains an article that begins, “Los Angeles County District Attorney Steve Cooley is proposing to soften the state’s ‘three-strikes’ law with a ballot initiative that would eliminate likely life terms unless the third conviction came on a ‘serious’ or ‘violent’ offense.”

“Judges deny Allen’s appeal — reprieve sought; Supreme Court last hope for killer set to die early Tuesday”: The San Francisco Chronicle today contains this article reporting on a ruling that a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued yesterday.

In today’s edition of The Los Angeles Times, Henry Weinstein reports that “Ailing Inmate Is Set to Die; Murderer Clarence Ray Allen, 76, the oldest man on California’s death row, is to be executed early Tuesday; Death penalty foes plan march.”

And The Sacramento Bee contains a front page article headlined “Age grows as issue on death row.”

“Off Camera: To save hearings on Supreme Court nominees, remove the cameras.” T.A. Frank has this essay online at The New Republic.

Online at Reason, Jeff A. Taylor has an essay entitled “The Death of the Abortion Debate? Post-Alito, the issue may recede on the national stage.”

In the January 23, 2006 issue of The Weekly Standard, William Tucker has an essay entitled “The Smear that Failed: Judge Alito, when did you stop molesting children?” And Joseph Bottum has an essay entitled “Alito and the Catholics: The decline of an institution and the rise of its ideas.”

At Salon.com, Joe Conason has an essay entitled “Alito’s ugly association: His membership in a racist, reactionary group at Princeton reveals the unsavory face of conservatism.”

And online at The Nation, Bruce Shapiro has an essay entitled “Alito Almanac: Confirmation and Crisis.”

“Sarbanes-Oxley vs. the Free Press: How the government used business regulations to strong-arm the media.” John Berlau has this article in the January 2006 issue of Reason.

“Alito’s Testimony Carries Reagan-Era Echoes; Reagan Influence Shines Through Vague Testimony”: Tony Mauro has this article today in Legal Times. And T.R. Goldman reports that “Senators Shove Alito From the Limelight; During the week, it seemed that the more members of the Judiciary Committee spoke, the less the nominee said.”

Meanwhile, in today’s issue of The National Law Journal, Marcia Coyle has an article headlined “Alito’s way: Far from ‘broken,’ hearings reveal clues to nominee.”

“Judicial pay raise proposal: No need to boost salaries.” James C. Harrington has this essay in this week’s issue of The National Law Journal.

“Blawg Review #40”: Available here, at “Small Business Trends.”

“Justice Parker advocates defying the law of the land”: This editorial appears today in The Decatur (Ala.) Daily.

“Abortion opponents mark Roe v. Wade decision; They gather in Livonia for the 33rd anniversary of the Supreme Court ruling legalizing abortion”: The Detroit News contains this article today.

And The Boston Globe reports today that “Opponents of abortion flock to a forum; Over 200 gather in an annual rally.”

“After Katrina, courts flooded by lawsuits; Lawyers worry jury trials may not resume until 2007”: This article appears today in USA Today.

“Unanswered Questions”: In the January 23, 2006 issue of The New Yorker, Jeffrey Toobin has a “Talk of the Town” essay that begins, “Richard A. Posner, the Chicago judge and conservative polymath, recently made a revealing confession in the pages of the Harvard Law Review. Of the 2004-05 Supreme Court term, he wrote, ‘Almost a quarter century as a federal appellate judge has convinced me it is rarely possible to say with a straight face of a Supreme Court constitutional decision that it was decided correctly or incorrectly.'”

“The High-Court Battle That Never Was; Senators’ Pact on Judicial Filibusters Drained Drama From Roberts, Alito Nominations”: The Wall Street Journal contains this article (free access) today.

The New York Times contains articles headlined “Alito Hearings Unsettle Some Prevailing Wisdom About the Politics of Abortion“; “Some Abortion Foes Forgo Politics for Quiet Talk“; and “For President, Final Say on a Bill Sometimes Comes After the Signing.”

The New York Sun reports that “Democrats Divided On Filibuster.” The newspaper also contains an editorial entitled “What the Democrats Fear” and an op-ed by William F. Buckley Jr. entitled “Detoxing Judge Alito.”

The San Jose Mercury News reports that “Feinstein prepares to vote no on Alito.”

The Newark (N.J.) Star-Ledger reports that “Key Alito opponent rules out filibuster; Feinstein says she disagrees with nominee to top court but calls him ‘clearly qualified.’”

The Washington Times reports that “Key Democrat disavows block of Alito vote.” And Donald Lambro has an op-ed entitled “De-fanged.”

The Appleton (Wis.) Post-Crescent contains an article headlined “Oneida keep eye on Alito hearings; Court nominee could play role in tribe’s land claim.”

The Wilmington (Del.) News Journal reports that “Italian-Americans take pride in Alito; For many, heritage outweighs high-stakes constitutional debate.”

And The Daily Princetonian contains articles headlined “Committee likely to back Alito“; “Critic says Alito ‘unfit’ to serve“; and “CAP official denies role in hiring Alito.”

In commentary, The Amarillo Globe-News contains an editorial entitled “Alito no longer a bench-warmer; Nominee deserves confirmation.”

In The Philadelphia Inquirer, Robert Strauss has an op-ed entitled “What you forget upon turning 50.”

In The Philadelphia Daily News, columnist Stu Bykofsky has an op-ed entitled “What’s that smell? The Alito hearings.”

In The Times Herald-Record of Hudson Valley, New York, Douglas Cunningham has an op-ed entitled “Questioning of Alito was blatantly farcical.”

In The Cleveland Plain Dealer, columnist Connie Schultz has an op-ed entitled “Alito’s wife’s tears prove nothing but love.”

In The Bergen (N.J.) Record, Pam Lobley has an essay entitled “A beginner’s guide to the Alito hearings.”

John Brummett of the Arkansas News Bureau has an essay entitled “Your time has expired, Senator Candid.”

And online at FindLaw, Michael C. Dorf has an essay entitled “Should Judges Testify at a Colleague’s Senate Confirmation Hearing? The Separation-of-Powers Concern Raised by the Alito Hearings,” while Douglas W. Kmiec has an essay entitled “It’s Not Just Alito’s Quandary: Reconciling Executive and Legislative Power.”

“Senate Democrats Emphasizing Ethics, Not Alito; Unable to Keep Conservatives Off Court, Leaders Turn to Issues That Have More Traction With Voters”: This article will appear Monday in The Washington Post. In addition, Dana Milbank will have an article headlined “I, I, Sir: The Alito Hearings, Annotated.”

Monday’s edition of The Richmond Times-Dispatch will contain an article headlined “M. Warner: Would not have nominated Alito.”

Monday in The New York Times, columnist Bob Herbert will have an op-ed entitled “Judicial Gag Rule” (TimesSelect subscription required).

And Monday in USA Today, Fred Graham will have an op-ed entitled “In need of review: life tenure on the U.S. Supreme Court.”

“Getting Over Alito”: The January 23, 2006 issue of Time magazine will contain this “Notebook” item.

“Legal Experts Question Translator’s Conviction; Trial Transcripts Show Lack of Evidence”: This front page article will appear Monday in The Washington Post.

“Not All Law Is Politics in Robes”: Law Professor Jonathan H. Adler had this “Rule of Law” essay (pass-through link) yesterday in The Wall Street Journal.

“Justice Resnick to retire from Ohio Supreme Court”: This article appears today in The Cleveland Plain Dealer.

The Toledo Blade reports today that “Resnick confirms she plans to retire; Democrat cites family concerns.”

And The Columbus Dispatch reports that “Resnick won’t seek 4th term on high court.”

In the January 23, 2006 issue of Newsweek: The magazine will contain articles headlined “Read ‘Em and Weep — Lower expectations, let the Senate self-destruct: a Supreme success formula” and “Joe Biden: It’s Time to Change the Conversation.” In addition, columnist Jonathan Alter will have an essay entitled “A Power Outage on Capitol Hill: We are in danger of scrapping our checks and balances–not just for a few years (as was done during the Civil War), but for good.”

“Feinstein Warns Against Alito Filibuster”: Hope Yen of The Associated Press provides this report.

On this week’s broadcast of NPR‘s “On the Media“: The broadcast contained a segment entitled “Civics Lesson” featuring law.com’s Tony Mauro and a segment entitled “Camera Shy” (about cameras in the U.S. Supreme Court) featuring C-SPAN’s Brian Lamb. Both audio clips are in mp3 format.

“Figment of imagination: There is no constitutional right to privacy; Call a national referendum to settle the issue.” Circuit Judge Harold R. DeMoss, Jr. of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has this op-ed today in The Houston Chronicle.

“All about Alito (or not)”: The Los Angeles Times contains this editorial today.

The Philadelphia Inquirer today contains an editorial entitled “Confirm Judge Alito.”

The Baltimore Sun contains an editorial entitled “Not good enough.”

In The Washington Post, columnist David S. Broder has an op-ed entitled “The Company Man.”

In The New York Times, columnist David Brooks has an op-ed entitled “In Praise of Joe Biden” (TimesSelect subscription required).

The Republican of Springfield, Massachusetts contains an editorial entitled “It can be confirmed: Alito hearings no help.”

The Hartford Courant contains an editorial entitled “Forget About The Hearings?” And Law Professor Sanford Levinson has an op-ed entitled “Power Ploy — For Republicans, the furor over Roe vs. Wade is a useful distraction from the real prize Samuel Alito can help deliver on the Supreme Court: vastly expanded presidential authority.”

The Sacramento Bee contains an editorial entitled “Constitutional powers hanging in the balance; Alito nomination gives senators a chance to re-assert the rightful role of Congress.” And Paul Greenberg has an op-ed entitled “Camera doesn’t lie: Sam Alito is no Robert Bork.”

The Oregonian contains an editorial entitled “The judge of Bush’s dreams: Senators lulled by Alito’s mild demeanor and legal skills can’t ignore the likely consequences of confirmation.”

The Grand Rapids Press contains an editorial entitled “An able addition to the high court.”

The Day of New London, Connecticut contains an editorial entitled “Confirm Judge Samuel Alito; Judge’s intellect, integrity commend him to nation’s highest court.”

The Morning Sentinel of Maine contains an editorial entitled “Alito ready to take his place on Supreme Court” that begins, “Samuel A. Alito Jr. should be confirmed as an associate justice on the U.S. Supreme Court.”

The Los Angeles Daily News contains an editorial entitled “Confirm Alito: Supreme Court nominee puts professionalism over ideology.” And Jonathan Dobrer has an op-ed entitled “Hearings all pomp, no circumstance.”

The News Leader of Staunton, Virginia contains an editorial entitled “Hearings served no one.”

The St. Petersburg Times contains an op-ed by George K. Rahdert entitled “The Sam Alito I know.”

In The Boston Globe, columnist Joan Vennochi has an op-ed entitled “Pro-Roe and pro-Alito.”

In Newsday, columnist Les Payne has an op-ed entitled “King would get a kick out of Alito show.” And sports columnist Chuck Culpepper has an op-ed entitled “Batting practice experience could make him swing vote.”

In The Chicago Sun-Times, columnist Mark Steyn has an op-ed entitled “Ham-handed Dems didn’t lay a glove on Alito.”

In The Dallas Morning News, Mark Davis has an op-ed entitled “What planet are Democrats from? As if attacking Alito weren’t enough, they also lied about Roe vs. Wade.”

In The Naples Daily News, Phil Lewis has an op-ed entitled “Samuel Alito weighs in on the First Amendment.”

In The Seattle Times, Julia K. Stronks has an op-ed entitled “Breyer v. Scalia: Will Alito be an activist or a textualist?”

In The San Jose Mercury News, Jim Puzzanghera has an op-ed entitled “The art of saying nothing.”

In The Richmond Times-Dispatch, Marsha Mercer has an op-ed entitled “Live From D.C., It’s…?: Alito Leaves Open Notion of Cameras in High Court.”

In The Washington Times, Dan K. Thomasson has an op-ed entitled “Confirmation barometer.”

And in The Ventura County Star, Stanislaus Pulle has an op-ed entitled “Alito demonstrates judicial restraint,” while Gary M. Galles has an op-ed entitled “No nominee could unite the country.”

“Can Congress matter? Congress, more than the court, scholars say, is the branch that’s supposed to keep executive power in check; If it has failed, it has no one but itself to blame.” This article appears today in the Ideas section of The Boston Globe.

“Abortion gets wide protection in Md. law; Procedure likely to remain available if Roe is overturned”: The Baltimore Sun contains this article today.

“Immigrant’s son emerges as rising legal star; Texas solicitor general driven by beliefs, guided by law”: This profile of Texas Solicitor General Ted Cruz appears today in The Austin American-Statesman.

“Alito May Quickly Affect Laws; His confirmation to the high court would make him a decisive vote in several upcoming cases”: David G. Savage has this article today in The Los Angeles Times.

The San Francisco Chronicle today contains an article headlined “Shuffling nominees, Bush may hit jackpot.”

The Denver Post reports that “Salazar silent on how he’ll vote on Alito.”

And The Kennebec (Me.) Journal reports that “Anti-abortion activists see hope in realigned court.”

“Confirming Justice Alito?” Law Professor Cass R. Sunstein has this post today at The University of Chicago Law School’s “Faculty Blog.”

“Senate windbags fail to land a blow on court nominee”: Sunday’s edition of The Telegraph (UK) contains this article.

Sunday’s edition of Newsday will contain an article headlined “For Alito, shift by court seen as certain; Alito testified at his confirmation hearings he’d just follow the law, but experts still say he will move court to right.”

The Daily Princetonian provides a news update headlined “Former CAP official says he didn’t help Alito; Eastland writes he had ‘no part’ in 1985 decision to hire Alito for Justice Department position.” The article reports on Terry Eastland’s essay entitled “Inside ‘Concerned Alumni of Princeton’: Samuel Alito had virtually nothing to do with the notorious CAP; I did” in the January 23, 2006 issue of The Weekly Standard.

The Harvard Crimson provides a news update headlined “Tribe to Senate: ‘Justice Alito’ Would Reduce Abortion Rights to ‘Hollow Shell’; Harvard professor warns that nominee would chip away at Roe v. Wade.”

The January 23, 2006 issue of U.S. News & World Report will contain articles headlined “In the Lion’s Den, Sound and Fury, and a Few Tears” and “Executive Power and the Issue of Eavesdropping.”

And in the Week in Review section of Sunday’s edition of The New York Times, Law Professor Jeffrey Rosen will have an essay entitled “Alito vs. Roberts, Word by Word.” And a Critic’s Notebook essay is entitled “See Washington Gum the Scenery.”

“Confirm Samuel Alito”: This editorial will appear Sunday in The Washington Post.

And The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel on Sunday will contain an editorial entitled “Alito deserves confirmation.”

“Partisanship mars judge’s confirmation hearing”: Patti Waldmeir has this article today in Financial Times.

The Associated Press provides an article headlined “Alito Poised to Join Supreme Court” that begins, “Samuel Alito is poised to join a tradition of pragmatic justices who have moved the Supreme Court to the right in measured steps.”

The Boston Globe today contains an editorial entitled “Not fit for the court.”

The Dallas Morning News contains an editorial entitled “Confirm Alito; Nominee deserves Senate’s backing.”

And The Wisconsin State Journal contains an editorial entitled “Alito deserves confirmation.”

Available online from National Public Radio: Yesterday’s broadcast of “All Things Considered” contained segments entitled “Senate Panel Wraps Up Alito Hearings” and “Political Roundup: The Alito Hearings,” both featuring Nina Totenberg.

And yesterday’s hour-long wrap-up of the fifth and final day of the confirmation hearing can be accessed here.

RealPlayer is required to launch these audio segments.