“Democrats See Wide Bush Stamp on Court System”: This article will appear Sunday in The New York Times. And a related graphic is here.

“Waco attorney arrested for kidnapping own client”: Yesterday’s edition of The Waco (Tex.) Tribune-Herald contained an article that begins, “A Waco attorney was arrested this week after allegedly kidnapping a client on his wedding day to try to collect fees from him.”

The Associated Press is reporting: An article headlined “President Presses Senate to Confirm Alito” reports on President Bush’s radio address of this morning.

An article headlined “Supreme Court to Hear First Amendment Case” begins, “The Supreme Court will hear arguments Tuesday in an anti-abortion group’s First Amendment challenge to advertising limits in the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law.”

And in other news, “Sniper Suspect Lawyers File Motion in Md.“; “Judge in Pentagon Papers Case Dies at 75“; and “Lawyer Allegedly Kidnaps Client Over Fees.”

“Alito’s Senate hearings conclude; Democrats hint at delaying vote”: Jan Crawford Greenburg has this article today in The Chicago Tribune.

The Washington Post reports today that “Alito Hearings Conclude; Final Day Focuses on Nominee’s Views on Executive Power.”

The Los Angeles Times reports that “Senate Panel’s Vote on Alito Is Put Off; Judiciary Committee Democrats seek more time to deliberate over the Supreme Court nominee before the full chamber weighs in.”

In The New York Times, Adam Liptak reports that “Presidential Signing Statements, and Alito’s Role in Them, Are Questioned.”

In The San Francisco Chronicle, Bob Egelko reports that “Dems may stall on Alito, but OK likely; Hearings end with praise and warnings about nominee.”

The Boston Globe reports that “Senators say Alito likely to get nod; Opponents launch last-ditch pitch on the airwaves.”

The Newark (N.J.) Star-Ledger reports that “Alito Senate hearings end, but partisan fight rages on; Despite bickering, judge’s confirmation expected.”

In The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Michael McGough reports that “Specter says he’ll vote to confirm Alito.”

The Houston Chronicle contains articles headlined “Democrats hint at seeking delay on vote for Alito; Confirmation hearings close; panel set to decide his fate Tuesday” and “Lawmaker: Alito’s record detrimental to Hispanics; Texas Democrat concerned about legal writings on illegal immigrants.”

The Washington Times reports that “Democrats look to delay Alito vote.”

The Trenton Times reports that “Alumnus slams Alito’s ‘insensitivity.’”

The Daily Princetonian reports that “CAP critic calls Alito ‘unfit’ to serve; Formerly slated to testify before judiciary committee, Dujack ’76 criticizes media for ‘character assassination.’”

The News & Observer of Raleigh, North Carolina reports that “Triangle law professors offer views on Alito.”

The Herald-Sun of Durham, North Carolina reports that “Professor testifies against Alito.”

Via The New York Times, the transcript of yesterday’s confirmation hearing can be accessed here. And via C-SPAN, the video of yesterday’s hearing can be accessed here (RealPlayer required).

“MacDonald gets fourth appeal; Marshal’s claim may lead to retrial”: The News & Observer of Raleigh, North Carolina today contains an article that begins, “Jeffrey MacDonald is coming back to court in North Carolina, where the former Army doctor will get a new chance to argue he’s innocent of butchering his pregnant wife and two daughters at Fort Bragg 36 years ago. A federal appeals court told MacDonald’s lawyers Friday that they may pursue a rare fourth appeal.”

New law prof group blog: It’s called “LawCulture,” and (notably for the law prof group blogosphere) it lists more female than male contributors.

“Do Blawgs Burn as Brightly as Surveys Suggest? Blogger questions measurements of legal industry blog use, but not blawgs’ potential as tool.” Ron Friedmann has this essay online at law.com. For some reason or the other, I remain pleased by one aspect of the results of the survey that is the subject of Ron’s essay.

“Wider Fight Is Seen as Alito Victory Appears Secured”: This article will appear Saturday in The New York Times.

In Saturday’s issue of The Wall Street Journal, Jess Bravin will have an article headlined “Weighing Rulings on Religion; If Confirmed, Alito May Tip Balance To the Right in Upcoming Church-State Cases” (free access). My brand new law.com column — titled “Who’ll Be The Supreme Court’s Next Swinger?” — reaches a similar conclusion.

Stephen Henderson and James Kuhnhenn of Knight Ridder Newspapers report that “Hearings yield little insight on how Alito would decide key issues.”

At law.com, T.R. Goldman has an essay entitled “Alito Hearings Gave Senate Committee the Chance to Perform; Judiciary committee hearings into Supreme Court nomination made for a revealing look at key senators’ behavior.”

The Daily Princetonian contains a news update headlined “Alito will likely receive committee’s backing; CAP issue ‘a puff of smoke,’ judiciary committee chairman Specter says.”

Saturday’s edition of The Independent (UK) reports that “Alito likely to sail into role as Bush’s latest Supreme Court judge.”

At Forbes.com, Larry E. Ribstein looks at “Justice Alito On Business.”

At NPR.org, Ron Elving has an essay entitled “Alito: Another Reality Show Winner.”

And columnist Jay Ambrose has an essay entitled “Inquisitors v. Alito” for the Scripps Howard News Service.

A return to appellate geekdom: Now that the U.S. Supreme Court confirmation hearing has ended, what better time to remark that footnote 4 of an opinion the First Circuit issued today appears to conflict with the current version of Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(4)(B)? On the bright side, that error is dicta.

“Judge Wants Justices Denied; In Op-Ed, Alabama Jurist Slams ‘Activists,’ Calls for Resistance of U.S. High Court Ruling”: This article appears online today at the ABA Journal eReport. My earlier coverage can be accessed here and here.

Update: At “The Huffington Post,” Michelle Pilecki has a related post titled “Who’s an Activist Judge?”

“Governor denies clemency for Clarence Ray Allen”: The Sacramento Bee provides this news update. The California Governor’s decision can be accessed here.

“Padilla Pleads Not Guilty; Bail Is Denied”: This article appears today in The New York Times.

The Miami Herald today contains an article headlined “We found Padilla’s al Qaeda application, U.S. says; Prosecutors said the U.S. government discovered alleged terrorist Jose Padilla’s written application to join al Qaeda.”

And The South Florida Sun-Sentinel reports that “Miami prosecutors allege Padilla was trained by al-Qaida in Afghanistan.”

“Alito gains key endorsement for US high court”: Reuters provides this report.

Confirmation hearing-related editorial cartoons and other attempts at humor: A few of the more clever cartoons can be accessed here, here, and here.

And the final portion of David Letterman’s monologue (RealPlayer required) last night was devoted to the hearing.

“Opening Shots Fired in Angels, Anaheim Trial”: The Los Angeles Times provides this news update.

The Sacramento Bee is reporting: Claire Cooper, that newspaper’s legal affairs writer, has an article in today’s newspaper headlined “Court backs longer military stints; Sacramento Army reservist had challenged his extension.”

And an article headlined “Judge rejects death row plea; U.S. high court is asked to block execution” begins, “A Sacramento federal judge refused Thursday to block the execution of Clarence Ray Allen, rejecting the argument that putting him to death in view of his age, physical infirmities and lengthy stay on death row would amount to ‘cruel and unusual punishment’ in violation of the Eighth Amendment.”

Available online from The San Francisco Chronicle: Today’s newspaper contains an article headlined “Democrats fail to pin Alito down in final questioning; Nominee expected to be confirmed to Supreme Court.” And Bob Egelko reports that “Questions raised about having judges testify.”

Relatedly, today’s installment of Don Asmussen’s “Bad Reporter” cartoon is entitled “The Right to Cry.”

And today’s newspaper also contains an article headlined “Court rules against Yahoo; France fined firm over Nazi items posted on Web.”

On today’s broadcast of NPR‘s “Day to Day“: The broadcast contained segments entitled “Alito Wraps Testimony, Senate Panel Continues Debate“; “A ‘Dead Language’ Gains New Life in the Senate“; and “Alito and Abortion Rights: A Pro-Life Perspective” (RealPlayer required).

The Associated Press is reporting: An article reports that “Alito Hearings Close, Confirmation Likely.”

And an article headlined “Court Rejects Police Immunity From Lawsuit” reports on a ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit issued today.

“Who Was That Striking Lady in Red?” The Washington Post today contains an item that begins, “Ladies and gentleman, we present the breakout star of the Alito hearings — Rachel Brand !” You can learn more about her here. Not surprisingly, “Wonkette” provides additional coverage.

“High Court to Weigh Domestic Abuse Claim”: Gina Holland of The Associated Press provides this report on a case that the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to review today.

And at “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “Court to hear criminal case on duress issue.”

“Please Don’t Feed the Federalists: A Democrat’s field guide to the conservative jurist.” Dahlia Lithwick has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.

“Even Law Firms Join the Trend to Outsourcing”: This article appears today in The New York Times.

“The question presented by this appeal is whether a taxpayer can ever have standing under Article III of the Constitution to litigate an alleged violation of the First Amendment’s establishment clause unless Congress has earmarked money for the program or activity that is challenged.” So begins an opinion that Circuit Judge Richard A. Posner issued today on behalf of a divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. The majority opinion later explains, “The taxpayers here are complaining about the use of money appropriated by Congress under Article I, section 8, to fund conferences that various executive-branch agencies hold to promote President Bush’s ‘Faith-Based and Community Initiatives.'” Today’s decision reinstates the lawsuit, which the district court had dismissed.

Circuit Judge Kenneth F. Ripple‘s dissenting opinion begins, “Today, the panel majority holds that executive conduct alleged to have violated the Establishment Clause may be challenged by federal taxpayers so long as that conduct was financed in some manner by a congressional appropriation. Because I do not believe that the applicable Supreme Court precedent permits such a dramatic expansion of current standing doctrine, I respectfully dissent.”

The Senate Judiciary Committee‘s hearing on the nomination of Samuel A. Alito, Jr. to the U.S. Supreme Court has concluded: It would appear that the schedule for a floor vote in the U.S. Senate on Friday, January 20, 2006 will not be adhered to because the committee’s mark-up of the nomination will be postponed a week at the behest of one or more Democratic Senators.

“This just in from ‘Alito’: Put a cork in it, senator!” The author of the blog “The Right Honorable Samuel A. Alito, Jr.” is revealed in this article that Amy Klein has today in The Bergen (N.J.) Record.

“Man Faces Trial for Taking Payments To Serve as Class Action Suit Plaintiff”: Josh Gerstein has this article today in The New York Sun.

“Taking on a nation — Claiming they were sexually harassed and abused while working at a tribal casino, a group of California women are suing; There’s only one problem: As part of a sovereign Indian nation, the casino is exempt from civil U.S. law.” Peter Byrne has this essay today at Salon.com.

“Concerned Alumni of Reagan: Sam Alito goes from one group of grumpy old men to another.” Bruce Reed has this post as Slate’s “The Has-Been.”

In the January 14, 2006 issue of The Economist: The magazine will contain articles headlined “The brainbox and the blowhards: Samuel Alito, George Bush’s latest pick for the Supreme Court, faces a tough and dirty battle for confirmation; But he looks as though he’ll win” and “Why judges matter: They can protect defunct monopolies and mess up children’s lives.”

Access online the Supreme Court of Connecticut‘s ruling in State v. Skakel: The majority opinion is here, while a concurring opinion is here.

Earlier this morning, I linked to press coverage of this matter here. And The Associated Press reports that “Conn. Court Upholds Skakel Conviction.”

On today’s broadcast of NPR‘s “Morning Edition“: This morning’s broadcast contained segments entitled “Questions for Alito End, Witnesses Testify” (featuring Nina Totenberg) and “DNA Test Backs Up Verdict in 1992 Execution.” RealPlayer is required to launch these audio segments.

“Baited Breath: Has Alito given Democrats justification for a filibuster?” Ryan Lizza will have this essay (pass-through link) in the January 23, 2006 issue of The New Republic.

“Alito’s Way: Try as they might, the Democrats cannot elicit negative comments from friendly judges or ABA representatives.” Today in The Legal Intelligencer, Shannon P. Duffy has an article (subscription required) that begins, “If the Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee accomplished anything in their two-and-a-half days of grilling U.S. Supreme Court nominee Samuel A. Alito Jr., their efforts seemed to be eviscerated immediately after the lunch break yesterday with the powerful and sweeping endorsements Alito received from witnesses from the American Bar Association and his own colleagues on the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.”

“Disguise And Resent”: CBS News legal analyst Andrew Cohen has an essay that begins, “The question-and-answer session ended as it began — with nice comments from Senate Judiciary Committee Senators to the Supreme Court nominee and his family. But the 20 hours in between were anything but nice or neat or encouraging to anyone truly interested in the sweep of the law over the grit and grime of politics.”