“Alito pressed on precedent, privacy; Halfway through his hearings, opponents have struggled to depict high-court nominee as an extremist”: This article will appear Thursday in The Christian Science Monitor.

“Senate Confirmation Hearings: Day 3.” The New York Times provides this transcript of today’s proceedings.

“Gasoline price claims doubted; Justices question allegations made by service stations”: The Houston Chronicle today contains an article that begins, “U.S. Supreme Court justices signaled strong skepticism Tuesday of claims by service station dealers that Shell Oil Co. and Texaco fixed prices by selling gasoline through a pair of Houston-based joint ventures.”

“Alito wife leaves hearing in tears”: The Drudge Report offers this.

The Associated Press provides reports headlined “Democrats Aggressively Question Alito“; “Alito Turns Aside Democrats’ Criticism“; and “Backstage Drama Abounds at Alito Hearings.”

And for those who keep track, JudgeAlito.com is pro-confirmation, while SamuelAlito.com is anti-confirmation.

“Alito Pushed by Democrats in Second Day of Questioning”: At law.com, T.R. Goldman provides this news update.

Calvin and: Has the requirement that interstate commerce be implicated in federal Hobbs Act prosecutions been relaxed too much? Today, First Circuit Judge Juan R. Torruella issued a separate opinion in which he writes:

Under the government’s theory of causation, if the decedent had taken the money out of the kitchen hiding place, gone to the supermarket, and been robbed of this money, shot, and killed by a person holding up the supermarket, a Hobbs Act violation could be charged since the original source of those funds was a business in interstate commerce and his business was never able to reopen after the depletion of those funds and the owner’s death. What about the hold up of a neighborhood ice cream truck selling national brand products, in which the driver is killed resisting the robber, as a result of which his estate must file for bankruptcy? Would the government blink at calling that a Hobbs Act violation? At the rate we are going, perhaps the day will come when the federal government will see fit to prosecute the robbery of a child’s roadside lemonade stand because the lemons came from California, the sugar was refined in Philadelphia, and the paper cups were manufactured in China.

You can access the complete ruling at this link.

“This case presents an unusual question: whether plaintiffs, German Social Insurers, may bring state-law based negligence and wrongful death claims arising out of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, under authority of German law despite the personal representatives’ receipt of funds from the 9/11 Victim Compensation Fund.” As had the district court before it, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit answers “no” today in an opinion that you can access here.

“The Pressure to Cover”: The January 15, 2006 issue of The New York Times Magazine will contain an article (TimesSelect subscription required) by Law Professor Kenji Yoshino that begins, “When I began teaching at Yale Law School in 1998, a friend spoke to me frankly. ‘You’ll have a better chance at tenure,’ he said, ‘if you’re a homosexual professional than if you’re a professional homosexual.'”

“Pregnant doesn’t count in HOV lane”: The East Valley (Ariz.) Tribune today contains an article that begins, “Home pregnancy tests won’t be standard police equipment anytime soon after a judge ruled Tuesday that unborn children don’t count when it comes to carpool lanes.”

And in related coverage, The Associated Press offers an article headlined “Judge: Don’t Count Fetus for Carpool Quota.”

“Supreme Court Weighs Scope of New Evidence”: The Associated Press provides this report.

Seventh Circuit rejects religious-based challenge to Milwaukee’s ban on the distribution of literature on county buses: Today’s ruling, written by Circuit Judge Terence T. Evans, can be accessed here.

Why shouldn’t you drive a car containing a crack pipe, crack cocaine, and a loaded gun onto prison property? This opinion that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit issued today provides some persuasive reasons.

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit declines to overrule Roe v. Wade: A unanimous three-judge panel issued this per curiam opinion today. A three-judge Fifth Circuit panel confronted a similar appeal in 2004, and my post about that court’s ruling can be accessed here.

“From Alito’s Past, a Window on Conservatives at Princeton”: You can access here The New York Times article originally published on Sunday, November 27, 2005 that Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter (R-PA) is discussing now.

The article reports: “Mr. Morgan’s memorandum and other records of Concerned Alumni are contained at the Library of Congress in the papers of William A. Rusher, a leader of the group and a former publisher of National Review. Those records and others at Mudd Library at Princeton give no indication that Judge Alito, who sits on the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, was among the group’s major donors. He was not an active leader of the group, and two of his classmates who were involved and Mr. Rusher said they did not remember his playing a role.”

“The issue before us is whether a plaintiff bringing suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 can assign her right to seek attorney’s fees to her attorney.” A unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit today answers “no” in an opinion you can access here. As the case in which the question arose demonstrates, a contrary resolution of the question would make certain civil rights cases much more difficult to settle.

“Tom Capano’s death sentence has been thrown out by the Delaware Supreme Court, which ordered a new penalty hearing and a resentencing for Capano.” The News Journal of Wilmington provides this news update, which continues, “A former state deputy attorney general, Capano was convicted and initially sentenced to death for the 1996 murder of Anne Marie Fahey.”

You can access today’s ruling of the Supreme Court of Delaware at this link. Two of the five judges participating in the ruling dissented from the decision to allow a new sentencing proceeding at which Capano could again be sentenced to death.

Finally, some fireworks at the Alito confirmation hearing: Moments ago, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter (R-PA) and committee member Edward M. Kennedy (D-MA) engaged in a heated discussion over whether the committee would subpoena records stored at the Library of Congress in the archive of former National Review publisher William A. Rusher pertaining to the Concerned Alumni of Princeton organization.

Ed Whelan blogs the confrontation here at National Review Online’s “Bench Memos” blog. And at The Washington Post’s “Campaign for the Court” blog, Fred Barbash has a post titled “Kennedy and Specter Have Words” that begins, “Things really got ugly — really ugly — between Sens. Kennedy and Specter.”

Update: The Washington Post makes the video of the confrontation available at this link.

“Democrat fears Alito may ban abortion”: Reuters provides a report that begins, “A top Senate Democrat told U.S. Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito on Wednesday that he remained concerned that Alito could be the deciding vote to reverse the 1973 decision that legalized abortion.”

There are two problems with this article’s first sentence and its headline. First, even if the U.S. Supreme Court‘s ruling in Roe v. Wade were overturned, that would merely return to the States the question of whether and how abortion should be regulated. It would not result in the declaration, by the U.S. Supreme Court, that abortion is illegal. And second, as I explained in my essay this week for law.com, “Even if both Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito would vote to overrule Roe v. Wade — and that’s a big if — five votes would remain on the Court to uphold Roe‘s central holding.”

“Start Snitching” t-shirts can still be worn in Massachusetts courts: The Boston Globe today contains an article headlined “Judge fights courtroom intimidation; Anti-snitch T-shirts, video phones banned” that begins, “A top state judge yesterday banned anyone from entering a courthouse wearing clothing that bears the phrase ‘Stop Snitching,’ in a crackdown on the latest forms of witness intimidation in criminal cases.”

“Jury selection under way in ‘Survivor’ tax case; The trial is expected to begin tomorrow and last between two and three weeks”: The Providence Journal contains this article today.

“High court to rule on eminent domain”: The Cincinnati Enquirer today contains an article that begins, “A three-year legal battle over Norwood’s right to seize private property for a $125 million commercial development goes before the Ohio Supreme Court today.” And in earlier coverage, on Sunday that newspaper contained an article headlined “Eminent-domain case goes to court” and a related item headlined “Norwood timeline.” You can watch today’s oral argument live by clicking here (the is due to be argued shortly after this post originally appeared; RealPlayer required).

In other coverage, The Associated Press reports that “Ohio Court Hears Case on Eminent Domain.”

And The Cincinnati Business Courier reports that “Rookwood heads for showdown; Development fight hits court Jan. 11.”

The Supreme Court of Ohio provides this background on the case. Once the oral argument video is archived, you will be able to access it via this link.

“U.S. attorney general: Court must stop mistreating immigrants”: Howard Mintz has this article today in The San Jose Mercury News.

The Austin American-Statesman reports today that “Review of immigration courts is ordered; U.S. attorney general also warns judges to treat claims fairly.”

And The Associated Press reports that “Attorney General Chides Immigration Judges.”

I have posted online the memorandums that Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales sent on Monday to immigration judges and to the members of the Board of Immigration Appeals.

“Democrats Say Alito’s Answers Inconsistent”: Jesse J. Holland of The Associated Press provides this report.

Today’s U.S. Supreme Court decision in an argued case: At “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “Court issues death penalty ruling.”

And Gina Holland of The Associated Press reports that “Justices Reinstate Calif. Death Sentence.”

You can access today’s 5-4 ruling in Brown v. Sanders, No. 04-980, at this link. Justice Antonin Scalia delivered the opinion of the Court. Justice John Paul Stevens delivered a dissenting opinion, in which Justice David H. Souter joined. And Justice Stephen G. Breyer delivered a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg joined. Finally, the oral argument transcript is available here.

Day three of the confirmation hearing for U.S. Supreme Court nominee Samuel A. Alito, Jr. is scheduled to begin at 9:30 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.

On today’s broadcast of NPR’s “Morning Edition”: This morning’s broadcast contained segments entitled “Alito to Face Further Grilling by Senate Panel” (featuring Nina Totenberg); “High Court to Weigh DNA in Criminal Case“; and “Evolution Debate Moves Into Philosophy Class.” RealPlayer is required to launch these audio segments.

“Berkeley Scouts In Court Over Policy on Gays”: Today in The New York Sun, Josh Gerstein has an article (pass-through link) that begins, “A Boy Scout group argued to the California Supreme Court yesterday that the city of Berkeley violated the Constitution by ending the youth organization’s six decades of free access to the city’s marina in a dispute over the Boy Scouts’ exclusion of gays and atheists.”

The San Francisco Chronicle reports today that “High court hears city, Sea Scouts on berth dispute; Group calls loss of marina privileges punitive for ideals.”

Claire Cooper, legal affairs writer for The Sacramento Bee, has a front page article headlined “Berkeley case tests subsidies for Scouts.”

In The Oakland Tribune, Josh Richman reports that “Lawyers spar over subsidy for Sea Scouts; City to top state judges: Group that discriminates doesn’t have right to Berkeley taxpayer money.”

As I noted earlier here, in The Los Angeles Times, Maura Dolan reports that “Court May Allow City to Deny Scouts a Break; Justices seem ready to uphold Berkeley’s decision not to waive dock fees for group whose parent organization bars gays.”

And David Kravets of The Associated Press reports that “Scouts claim bias over lost funds; Say Berkeley violated rights.”

The Philadelphia Inquirer is reporting: Today’s newspaper contains articles headlined “Did he do it? DNA results are due any day for inmate executed in 1992, and the man who fought for an answer” and “Acquaintance with a doomed man.”

And in local news, an article headlined “Judge grants earlobes their day in court; Whether those of a robbery suspect match those on camera is at issue” begins, “Fingerprints, blood, fibers and DNA have set the falsely accused free. But earlobes? A federal judge has cleared the way for a University of Pennsylvania Museum forensic anthropologist who studies differences in human ears to testify at the trial of a Philadelphia man charged with robbing a local bank.”

“The gang that couldn’t question straight: Eight Democratic senators had a chance to grill Samuel Alito Tuesday — but their artless queries could have been dodged by a tree sloth.” Walter Shapiro has this essay at Salon.com.

“Alito Called ‘Pretty Amazing So Far,’ As Leahy Jokes of His Own Snoring”: This article appears today in The New York Sun.

Today in The Los Angeles Times, Maura Reynolds, David G. Savage and Richard Simon have an article headlined “Alito Tells Skeptical Democrats He Would Keep an Open Mind.” Ronald Brownstein has a news analysis headlined “Democrats Cast Wide Net Seeking Alito Flaw; The senators’ critique showed the party’s difficulty at coalescing around a single, clear argument against his high court nomination.” And Stephen R. Dujack has an op-ed entitled “The Alito testimony you won’t hear.”

In The Chicago Tribune, Jill Zuckman reports that “Alito affirms right to privacy; Abortion, executive powers main topics.” And columnist John Kass has an op-ed entitled “Alito already confirmed–as Phillies fan.”

In USA Today, Joan Biskupic reports that “Nominee speaks softly and sticks to the big picture in his responses.” In related coverage, “Senators divided over Alito’s performance; Court nominee says he’d keep open mind about abortion, sidesteps wiretap questions.” An editorial is entitled “Alito disclaims an agenda, but would he protect rights?” And Jonah Goldberg has an op-ed entitled “Senate ‘show trial’ is product of a too-powerful court.”

Tom Curry, national affairs writer for MSNBC, has an article headlined “What we know and don’t know about Alito; Court nominee is noncommittal on abortion, national security surveillance.”

The Boston Globe today contains articles headlined “Alito backs privacy, asserts an open mind on abortion; Nominee doesn’t disavow his ’85 view against Roe v. Wade” and “Nominee sees ‘oversight,’ but no ethics breach in Vanguard case.”

The Newark (N.J.) Star-Ledger contains articles headlined “Alito tells critics: I’ll be fair; Democrats fail to get Supreme Court nominee to offer personal views” and “GOPers make sure to smother grenades.” And columnist Tom Moran has an essay entitled “So far, the Democrats keep missing tackles.”

In The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Michael McGough reports that “Alito, Democrats parry on Roe, rights; The aggressive questioning sometimes strained civility on the Senate panel.” And in related coverage, “Critics call Specter softer on Roe; Some Democrats, liberal groups contend grilling didn’t match Roberts hearings.”

The San Francisco Chronicle contains an article headlined “Alito offers few hints on how he’d rule; Democrats persistent with questions on war powers for president, abortion.” And Bob Egelko reports that “Questions about Roe skirted with skill; But Alito backs right to privacy, protection for women’s health.”

The Sacramento Bee reports that “Alito vows ‘open mind.’”

The Orange County Register reports that “Feinstein criticizes ‘cloudy’ answers.”

The Denver Post reports that “Alito vows open mind on abortion.”

Newsday reports that “Democrats pick their battles carefully.”

The Baltimore Sun contains articles headlined “Court nominee defends record; Alito, in careful answers, declines to detail his views on abortion rights or presidential powers” and “Alito irks foes by sticking to his script; Politely but stubbornly, he deflects Democratic efforts to smoke him out.”

The Houston Chronicle reports that “Alito promises open mind on abortion cases; Testimony covers the law surrounding landmark Roe ruling.”

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reports that “Alito grilled on powers of president; Nominee doesn’t get specific under tough questioning from Democrats.”

The Austin American-Statesman contains an article headlined “Analysis: Nominee rarely backed immigrants in court.”

The Washington Times contains articles headlined “Alito won’t prejudge Roe” and “A Jersey clan with Italian family values.” An editorial is entitled “The reasonable Judge Alito.” And Gary Bauer has an op-ed entitled “Out of the closet on abortion.”

FOXNews.com provides a report headlined “A Mostly Swimming Day for Alito.”

The Salt Lake Tribune reports that “In quizzing Alito, Hatch serves up ‘soft lobs to the net.’”

The Deseret Morning News reports that “Senators’ grilling, views of Alito split on party lines; ‘He’s as good as it gets,’ Hatch says, but Demos aren’t swayed.”

The Cleveland Plain Dealer reports that “Roe not ‘special,’ DeWine declares.”

The Dayton Daily News reports that “DeWine decries ‘unfair’ attacks.”

The Washington Post reports that “Kennedy Makes a Weapon Of McCain’s Torture Law.”

The News & Observer of Raleigh, North Carolina reports that “UNC-CH law professor called to testify.”

The Herald-Sun of Durham, North Carolina reports that “Duke prof to testify at hearings on Alito.”

The Arkansas News Bureau reports that “Religious leaders oppose Alito confirmation.”

The Baxter Bulletin reports that “Democrats want to hear more from Alito.”

The Oregonian reports that “Confirmation hearing inspires Alito critics, allies in Oregon; Opponents plan a demonstration in Portland, while others quietly voice support.”

The Trenton Times contains an article headlined “Witness to history unfolding.”

The Daily Princetonian contains articles headlined “Alito ’72 faces the fire; In first day of questioning, nominee is grilled on abortion, executive powers and CAP“; “Biden criticizes Princeton; Amid CAP showdown, senator says he ‘wasn’t a big Princeton fan’“; “Kennedy calls for release of CAP archives; Rusher says he has ‘no recollection’ of Alito affiliation with conservative group“; and “CAP critic pulled from Democratic witness list; Dujack ’76 regrets controversial op-ed, will not testify before Senate committee.”

The Times of London reports that “Alito frustrates Democrats with elusive responses.”

Patti Waldmeir of Financial Times reports that “Senators fail to land knock-out blow on Alito.”

The Toronto Globe and Mail reports that “Alito tells U.S. Senate he’d keep ‘open mind’ on abortion.”

And The Toronto Star reports that “U.S. court nominee promises ‘open mind.’”

“1st Suit in State to Attack ‘Intelligent Design’ Filed”: Henry Weinstein has this article today in The Los Angeles Times.

That newspaper today also contains articles headlined “Court May Allow City to Deny Scouts a Break; Justices seem ready to uphold Berkeley’s decision not to waive dock fees for group whose parent organization bars gays“; “Taking Sides on Same-Sex Marriage; Political, religious and civil rights groups file briefs as the legal fight over gay unions builds“; “Panel Calls for Moratorium on Executions; An Assembly committee approves a suspension of up to three years to study if the innocent are convicted; A critic calls idea an insult to victims“; “Unlikely Allies Back Three-Strikes Change“; and “Colin Farrell Sex Video Hits Internet.”

“Funeral protest ban is pushed; Downstate legislator set to introduce bill”: The Chicago Tribune today contains an article that begins, “Angered by a religious group’s demonstrations at scores of military funerals, a state lawmaker said he will soon introduce a bill to make such protests illegal in Illinois.” The article notes, “The state bills raise sticky constitutional questions that legal experts say could rise into the highest levels of the U.S. judicial system.”

“Clinical, Cynical: You’ll never believe what left-wing law profs consider ‘mainstream.'” Heather Mac Donald has this op-ed (free access) today in The Wall Street Journal.

“FBI checking prints in death row cases; Mistaken match prompts review of fingerprinting”: USA Today contains this article today.

“Fairness in the Alito Hearings”: This editorial appears today in The New York Times.

And columnist Maureen Dowd has an op-ed entitled “Doing the Alito Shuffle” (TimesSelect subscription required).