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.

The U.S. Supreme Court today took no action on the federal government’s petition for writ of certiorari in a case declaring unconstitutional the federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003: Today’s Order List is here. Much more background about Gonzales v. Carhart, which remains pending before the Supreme Court on the federal government’s request for review, can be accessed via this earlier post.

Available online from The Nation: Jeremy Brecher and Brendan Smith have an essay entitled “The Limits of Power: Questions for Alito.”

And John Nichols’s “The Online Beat” offers a post titled “Samuel Alito v. James Madison.”

Available today at National Review Online: U.S. Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) has an essay entitled “Alito Preview: What to watch for.”

And Matthew J. Franck has an essay entitled “Staring Down the Constitution: Roe and stare decisis.”

Today’s U.S. Supreme Court Order List: Today’s Order List can be accessed here.

At “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “Court seeks government views.” He reports that the Court did not grant review in any cases today.

In early news coverage, The Associated Press reports that “Supreme Court OKs Funds in Schools Case.”

The Court’s Order List from last Friday granting review in six cases can be accessed here.

“Majority of Americans Favor Alito Nomination; Most Expect Nominee Wouldn’t Vote to Strike Down Roe v. Wade”: The Washington Post provides a news update that begins, “A majority of Americans favor the confirmation of federal appeals court judge Samuel A. Alito Jr. to the U.S. Supreme Court and an even larger proportion believe Alito would not vote to overturn Roe v. Wade, the 1973 high court ruling that legalized abortion, according to the latest Washington Post-ABC News poll.”

On today’s broadcast of NPR‘s “Morning Edition“: This morning’s broadcast contained a segment entitled “Opening Statements Awaited at Alito Hearings” featuring Nina Totenberg.

Cokie Roberts had commentary entitled “Tough Fights Loom over DeLay, Alito.”

And the broadcast also contained a segment entitled “Virginia to Test DNA of Man Executed for Murder.”

RealPlayer is required to launch these audio segments.

Not a basis for a filibuster: “TaxProf Blog” provides a post titled “The Complete Tax Opinions of Judge Alito.”

Basis for a filibuster? The AP reports that “Alito Is a Springsteen Fan.”

“President Discusses Confirmation Hearing of Judge Alito with Press”: The White House has posted online this transcript. And Jesse J. Holland of The Associated Press reports that “Alito Gets Boost From Bush Before Hearing.”

“The Case of Alito v. O’Connor: Stuart Taylor Jr. has this essay in today’s issue of National Journal.

In the January 9, 2006 issue of The National Law Journal: Marcia Coyle reports that “Alito to face broad range of issues; Executive power, spying may be key.”

An editorial is entitled “Alito hearings.”

And Law Professor Jonathan Turley has an op-ed entitled “Solomon Amendment: Issue of hypocrisy.”

“Alito Called Harder Sell in Substance and Style; Both sides say his long career on the bench and a changed climate in Washington promise a tougher road than the one Roberts walked”: Maura Reynolds has this article today in The Los Angeles Times. The newspaper also contains an editorial entitled “Judging Judge Alito.”

Today in The New York Sun, Josh Gerstein reports that “Filibuster Is Eyed as Curtain Rises on Alito Hearing.”

Tom Curry, national affairs writer for MSNBC, has a report headlined “Five issues foes will try to use to torpedo Alito; Opponents crystallize case against Bush nominee: shoot a fleeing suspect.”

CNN.com reports that “Alito’s record, character on display at hearings; Nominee a legal heavyweight, but not as polished as Roberts.”

Today in The Wall Street Journal, Jeanne Cummings has a front page article headlined “Morning-After Pill Reshapes Debate Over Abortion; Courts, Legislatures Tackle Emergency Contraception; Tough Questions for Alito” (free access).

In The Boston Globe, Charlie Savage and Rick Klein have an article headlined “Democrats vow tough questions on Alito record; Showdown begins today.” The newspaper also contains an editorial entitled “Alito’s power trip” and an op-ed by Kate Michelman entitled “Alito’s fantasy world.”

The Philadelphia Inquirer reports that “A fight over courts staged in Phila.”

The Philadelphia Daily News reports that “Santorum rips liberal judges” and “Philly to flavor Alito hearings.”

The Washington Times reports that “Schumer warns of filibuster of Alito.” In addition, the newspaper contains an editorial entitled “The Alito hearings,” while U.S. Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) has an op-ed entitled “Borking Judge Alito.”

The Newark (N.J.) Star-Ledger reports that “The strong, silent type prevails at hearings; Alito confirmation will begin today.” And columnist John Farmer has an op-ed entitled “The case on Alito is far from clear-cut.”

The Asbury Park Press reports that “N.J. senators have concerns over Alito; Hearings for nominee start this morning.”

The Providence (R.I.) Journal reports that “Undecided on vote, Chafee has questions.”

The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reports that “Conservatives, Santorum rally for court reform.” In addition, Michael McGough has articles headlined “Abortion, individual rights on agenda for Alito hearings” and “Alito’s grilling begins today; Supreme Court nominee makes his case at confirmation hearings.”

The Washington Post contains articles headlined “Christian Right Mobilizes For Judge; Conservative Tilt Sought on Bench” and “Expert Witness: Activist Lawyer Jan LaRue Is Carrying A Banner for Sam Alito in a Battle That’s as Personal as It Is Political.” In addition, the newspaper, at its web site, offers an item titled “Transcript: 1988 Alito Comments on Bork Nomination.”

The State of Columbia, South Carolina reports that “S.C.’s Graham to play central role in hearings.”

The New Haven Register reports that “Alito nomination stirs debate at Yale.”

The Journal News of Westchester, New York reports that “Democrats to grill Alito on legal record.”

In The Harvard Crimson, Daniel J. Hemel reports that “Two Profs To Testify as Senate Vets Alito; After blocking Bork in ’87, Tribe will ‘probably not’ give thumbs up or down to Alito.”

The Daily Pennsylvanian reports that “City hosts debate over Alito pick; Prominent conservative activists, politicians spoke at church; opponents held own events.”

BBC News reports that “Battle lines drawn over Supreme Court.”

The Toronto Star reports that “U.S. top court pick faces grilling; Bush revelations push abortion out of the spotlight.”

“States’ laws clash on teen abortions; Missouri rule forces restrictions in Illinois”: This article appears today in The Chicago Tribune.

“‘Mainstream’ Bias: What Sam Alito and Louis Brandeis have in common.” OpinionJournal has today posted online this fascinating op-ed by Professor Ken I. Kersch. The piece appeared in print in Saturday’s issue of The Wall Street Journal.

“Hearings to Prove Alito is ‘No Sandra Day O’Connor’: “ScrappleFace” provides this report.

A question of grammar — For an individual U.S. Supreme Court nominee, does the Senate Judiciary Committee hold a “confirmation hearing” (singular) or “confirmation hearings” (plural): Careful readers may have noticed as of late that in my own writings I’ve been opting for the singular (which appears to mirror the resolution of this grammatical issue reflected at the Judiciary Committee’s web site). But, on the eve of the Alito confirmation hearing(s), I’d be happy to hear via email from readers who wish to offer their informed thoughts on the subject.

“Critics give Alito ‘steep hill to climb'”: Joan Biskupic will have this article Monday in USA Today.

Monday in The New York Times, David D. Kirkpatrick, who will be blogging the confirmation hearing for that newspaper, will have an article headlined “Two Legal Careers That Diverged May Intertwine Again.”

And Monday’s edition of The Washington Post will contain an editorial entitled “Questioning Judge Alito.”

“Alito’s Journey: Groomed for the Bench; Proving His Mettle in the Reagan Justice Dept.” Part two of The Washington Post’s front page two-part series on U.S. Supreme Court nominee Samuel A. Alito, Jr. will appear in Monday’s newspaper and can now be accessed online at this link. The very interesting part one of the series, which appears in today’s newspaper, can be accessed here.

The authors of the articles, who interviewed (among others) Judge Alito’s wife, sister, and mother, will participate in an online chat at washingtonpost.com tomorrow at 11 a.m.

“Issues and (Possible) Answers: A Primer on the Alito Hearings.” Adam Liptak will have this article Monday in The New York Times.

“O’Connor’s era reflects politics of Supreme Court”: Today in The Charlotte Observer, Tom Kazee has this review of Joan Biskupic’s book, “Sandra Day O’Connor: How the First Woman on the Supreme Court Became Its Most Influential Justice.”