For those who can’t wait to see U.S. Supreme Court confirmation hearings: Yesterday evening’s broadcast of C-SPAN‘s “America & the Courts” (click here to access in RealPlayer) consisted of “a look at how current Supreme Court Justices answered questions on abortion, civil rights, privacy & precedence from Senators on the Judiciary Committee during their confirmation hearings. This program includes Antonin Scalia on Stare Decisis, Clarence Thomas on Roe v. Wade, John Roberts on Privacy, and others.”
In addition, C-SPAN provides access via this link to a whole bunch of recently recorded video segments related to the confirmation hearing scheduled to get underway at noon eastern time tomorrow.
“Dems to attack Alito’s credibility at hearings; Republicans say they will tout high court nominee’s credentials, including unanimous top rating from ABA”: Monday’s edition of Newsday will contain this article.
And The Associated Press reports that “Santorum Rails Against Alito Opposition.”
“Democrats Ready to Go After Alito; High Court Nominee’s Memos Opposing Abortion Likely to Be Focal Points at Hearings”: This article will appear Monday in The Washington Post.
The Wall Street Journal’s “Washington Wire” on Monday will carry the headline “Prepping Alito for the Hot Seat” (free access).
USA Today on Monday will contain an editorial entitled “Rights at risk.”
CBS News legal analyst Andrew Cohen has an essay entitled “The Alito Shuffle.”
At Salon.com, Walter Shapiro has an essay entitled “Alito’s bad luck: The latest Supreme Court nominee has to face a Senate newly emboldened to challenge the imperial Bush presidency; And his paper trail gives them plenty of ammunition to do it.”
And in Monday’s edition of The Guardian (UK), Marcel Berlins has an essay entitled “Time for American justice to be judged.”
“FBI agents’ work faulted; Report criticizes Md. office in death of U.S. prosecutor”: The Baltimore Sun today contains an article that begins, “A Department of Justice inspector general report obtained by The Sun found ‘credible evidence of serious misconduct’ by agents from the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Baltimore division who investigated the death of federal prosecutor Jonathan P. Luna two years ago.”
And The Associated Press provides an article headlined “Report: FBI agents committed ‘serious misconduct’ in Luna probe.”
“The Cool Fervor of Judge Alito: Is he a conservative activist or a legal scholar not bound by ideology? Now’s his chance to argue his case.” The January 16, 2006 issue of Time magazine will contain this article.
Monday’s edition of The Times of London reports that “Court battle will cast a spotlight on Bush legacy.”
In Monday’s edition of Financial Times, Patti Waldmeir reports that “Alito ‘good guy, bad guy’ hostilities fail to rouse public.”
Bloomberg News reports that “Democrats Won’t Rule Out Blocking Alito’s Confirmation to Court.”
Voice of America News reports that “Senate Hearings on Supreme Court Nominee Begin Monday.”
And Monday in The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, David Newby will have an op-ed entitled “Judge at odds with interests of state workers.”
On this evening’s broadcast of NPR‘s “All Things Considered“: The broadcast contained segments entitled “Preview: The Alito Hearings” and “Bush and the Presidential Signing Statement.”
“Judging Alito as he would judge”: This editorial will appear Monday in The Christian Science Monitor.
“Crying out against the justices isn’t answer”: Today in The St. Petersburg Times, columnist Howard Troxler has an op-ed that begins, “It has become the usual thing, when you lose a big court case these days, to attack the judges.”
“Key question for Alito: presidential power; Senate confirmation hearings, starting Monday, are expected to delve into presidential powers.” Monday’s edition of The Christian Science Monitor will contain this article.
The Australian reports that “Court nominee to face Congress.”
Jesse J. Holland of The Associated Press reports that “Talk Is Tough on Eve of Alito Hearings.” The AP also reports that “Conservatives Split Ahead of Alito Hearing.”
Thomas Ferraro of Reuters reports that “Alito seen surviving tough US confirmation hearing.”
And The Green Bay Press-Gazette reports that “Feingold, Kohl ready questions for Alito hearing.”
In commentary, The Chicago Tribune contains an op-ed by Law Professor Jonathan Turley entitled “Tackling a judge’s ideology: Alito appears to be the Bob Newhart of judging, delivering deadpan decisions that make him difficult to lionize or demonize.”
And in The Denver Post, Daniel Kemmis has an op-ed entitled “The West and the high court: Region’s senators should play a key role in confirmation process.”
“Blogging: Scholarship or Distraction?” This post appears today at “TaxProf Blog.”
Available online from The Associated Press: “Alito’s Writings, Rulings Provide Insight“; “Schedule for Alito’s Hearings“; and “The Current Justices, Their Religions.”
“Tackling a judge’s ideology: The Senate should ignore the unwritten laws of Washington and strongly consider the ideology of a U.S. Supreme Court nominee.” Columnist Steve Chapman has this op-ed today in The Chicago Tribune.
Today in The Los Angeles Times, Law Professor Cass R. Sunstein has an op-ed entitled “Our legal guardians.” And Edward Lazarus has an op-ed entitled “Alito’s moment: Has Bush doomed his own nominee?”
In The Boston Globe, Robert Kuttner has an op-ed entitled “Alito may be the worst choice.”
In The Houston Chronicle, columnist Cragg Hines has an op-ed entitled “Will the real Samuel Alito stand up? Not very likely.” And Law Professor David R. Dow has an op-ed entitled “The decisive question: Is Alito a prophet? Prophetic skills are a must in person who fills court vacancy.”
In Newsday, Lawrence Baum has an op-ed entitled “What will hearings tell about Alito? Little.”
David Sanders of the Arkansas News Bureau has an essay entitled “A letter to two senators.”
And in The Oregonian, columnist David Reinhard has an op-ed entitled “The Alito Hearings.”
Today in The Kansas City Star, Sean Rushton has an op-ed entitled “Alito’s character, abilities outshine his foes’ distortions.” And Amy F. Isaacs has an op-ed entitled “Judge has demonstrated his promises are worthless.”
In The Salt Lake Tribune, Bruce Wilson has an op-ed entitled “Arlen Specter’s super-duper litmus test.”
In The San Francisco Chronicle, John H. Bunzel has an op-ed entitled “Key questions for Alito lost in abortion hubbub.”
And yesterday in The Rocky Mountain News, John W. Suthers has an op-ed entitled “Experienced Alito ideal for Supreme Court.”
“Appeals Court, Reversing Itself, Holds 2 Salvadoran Generals Liable in Torture Case”: This article appears today in The New York Times. My earlier coverage is here.
“Name That Source: Why are the courts leaning on journalists?” Jeffrey Toobin will have this “Annals of Law” essay in the January 16, 2006 issue of The New Yorker.
“Samuel Alito Jr.’s merits”: This editorial appears today in The Chicago Tribune.
The San Francisco Chronicle today contains an editorial entitled “10 questions for Samuel Alito.”
The Baltimore Sun contains an editorial entitled “Questions for Judge Alito.”
The Seattle Post-Intelligencer contains an editorial entitled “Alito Nomination: Time isn’t right.”
The Philadelphia Inquirer contains an editorial entitled “The Alito Hearings: A need for scrutiny.”
The Houston Chronicle contains an editorial entitled “Alito’s record: Bush’s court nominee, if confirmed, can be relied on to rule much as the judge’s admirers expect him to.”
The Detroit Free Press contains an editorial entitled “Questions for Justice: Toughest challenging of Alito should be on executive power, protecting liberties.”
The Oregonian contains an editorial entitled “A king-size effort for judge to seem like a moderate; Judge Samuel Alito needs to talk his way out of a filibuster.”
The Republican of Springfield, Massachusetts contains an editorial entitled “Questions for the judge who would be a justice.”
The South Florida Sun-Sentinel contains an editorial entitled “Supreme Court: Legal group calls Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito ‘well qualified.’”
And The Morning Sentinel of Maine contains an editorial entitled “Time for Alito to explain who he is and what he thinks.”
“In Alito Battle, Issues of Presidential Power Thrust to Forefront”: David G. Savage has this article today in The Los Angeles Times.
In the January 16, 2006 issue of Newsweek, Stuart Taylor Jr. and Evan Thomas have a periscope item headlined “Supreme Court: Tune In; A TV Guide To the Alito Hearings.”
The Baltimore Sun reports today that “Alito likely to face tough confirmation hearings.”
In The Houston Chronicle, Patty Reinert reports that “Alito’s future hinges on past; Senate panel is expected to look at history on civil rights, abortion, executive power.”
The Newark (N.J.) Star-Ledger contains articles headlined “Lady and gentlemen, start your questioning” and “Alito-O’Connor comparisons defy conventional labels.”
In The San Francisco Chronicle, Bob Egelko reports that “Alito must avoid being ‘Borked’; The lesson of Reagan’s nominee is: Say just as little as you possibly can.” The newspaper also contains articles headlined “An ideological rumble; The nomination: Expect confirmation hearings to be partisan slugfests, Senate-style” and “The abortion issue: Public opinion is polarized and bitter long after Roe vs. Wade ruling.”
Newsday contains an article headlined “Alito’s ‘defining moment’ of truth; Supreme Court nominee’s opening remarks during Senate hearings this week will set the tone.”
The Arizona Republic reports that “Alito battle brewing; Tough hearing awaits high court nominee.”
The Cleveland Plain Dealer contains an article headlined “Abortion: Where does Ohio stand? Numbers fall in state, but it’s still in central role as debate rekindles with Alito hearings.”
The Tampa Tribune reports that “Abortion Debated But Rarely Ruled Upon.”
The Denver Post reports that “Alito backers, foes seek sway on Salazar’s vote; Hearings to begin.”
The Birmingham News reports that “Alabama redistricting likely to arise; Alito’s stance debated on ‘one man, one vote.’”
The Burlington Free Press reports that “Leahy to question Alito on domestic spying.”
The Philadelphia Inquirer reports that “Plans for national Christian rally here are criticized.”
MarketWatch reports that “Alito begins confirmation battle; Supreme Court nominee’s Senate hearings start Monday.”
And The Daily Princetonian provides news updates headlined “Stage set for showdown over Alito; If confirmed, Alito would be Princeton’s ninth justice and first since 1955” and “CAP critic dropped from Alito witness list; Dujack ’76 regrets controversial op-ed, will not testify before Senate committee.”
“Alito Revealed”: This interesting photo gallery (click on the resulting page to access the gallery, replete with audio) accompanies The Washington Post’s lengthy front page profile Sunday of Samuel A. Alito, Jr.
“Alito Advocacy Fills Air of Swing States; Groups Vie to Sway Senate Confirmation”: This article will appear Sunday in The Washington Post.
“It Takes an Intellectual: To misconstrue the Constitution.” In the January 16, 2006 issue of The Weekly Standard, John J. DiIulio Jr. will have this review of Justice Stephen G. Breyer’s book, “Active Liberty: Interpreting Our Democratic Constitution.”
“Basic flaws led FBI to bungle Mayfield case, report finds; Oregon lawyer’s Muslim faith made fingerprint experts less likely to revisit Madrid findings, internal review says”: This article appears today in The Oregonian.
The Los Angeles Times reports today that “Report Says Mistaken Arrest Was Due to FBI’s Sloppy Work.”
The Seattle Times reports that “FBI ‘overconfidence’ blamed.”
The Chicago Tribune reports that “FBI faulted for error in terror case; ‘Overconfidence’ in fingerprint examiners tied to wrongful arrest.”
The Washington Times reports that “FBI error cited in lawyer’s arrest.”
The New York Times reports that “Inquiry Says F.B.I. Erred in Implicating Man in Attack.”
And yesterday evening’s broadcast of NPR‘s “All Things Considered” contained a segment entitled “FBI Faulted in Madrid Bombing Fingerprint Error.”
Some additional details are available via this earlier post.
“$54M torture verdict reinstated; An appellate court has reinstated $54.6 million to three alleged victims of torture in El Salvador, after initially revoking the award”: The Miami Herald today contains an article that begins, “In a stunning reversal, a federal appeals court in Atlanta has reinstated a West Palm Beach jury verdict awarding $54.6 million to three plaintiffs who accused two former Salvadoran generals of doing nothing to stop subordinates from torturing them. In February, the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had revoked the $54.6 million verdict against the two retired Salvadoran generals — one a Broward resident — who commanded troops in their Central American homeland during the civil war in the 1980s. But on Wednesday, the court changed its mind.”
You can access this past Wednesday’s ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit at this link. And that court’s earlier ruling reaching the opposite result is available here.
“Padilla’s Plea in Terror Case Delayed for His New Lawyers; Held since 2002, he was only recently charged. He’s expected to plead not guilty next week”: This article appears today in The Los Angeles Times.
The Miami Herald reports today that “Padilla to plead not guilty; After being detained as an ‘enemy combatant’ in military custody for about four years, a lawyer for Jose Padilla said he plans to plead not guilty to terror-conspiracy charges in Miami federal court.”
And The South Florida Sun-Sentinel reports today that “Judge postpones arraignment for terror suspect Padilla; Terror suspect’s mother joins him in federal court.”
In tomorrow’s issue of The New York Times Magazine: The magazine section will contain an article headlined “The Bush Administration vs. Salim Hamdan.”
In addition, Law Professor Noah Feldman will have an article headlined “Our Presidential Era: Who Can Check the President?” Therein, Feldman writes, “The limits of presidential power will almost surely be a major topic of discussion during Samuel A. Alito Jr.’s Supreme Court confirmation hearings, which are scheduled to begin this week.”
“Alito’s Journey: Going Against the Liberal Tide; A Search for Order, an Answer in the Law.” This lengthy front page article will appear Sunday in The Washington Post.
In news from Wisconsin: The Associated Press reports that “Wis. Governor Vetoes Abortion-Pain Bill.”
The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reports today that “Doyle wields veto on lead paint bill; He says justice would have been out of reach for victims.”
And The Wisconsin State Journal reports today that “Governor vetoes bills on liability.”
“Alito faces Senate confirmation hearings”: This article will appear Sunday in Newsday.
And The Jerusalem Post reports that “US Jews weigh in ahead of Alito hearings.”
“Democrats Criticize Appointment at Immigration Agency”: Sunday’s edition of The New York Times will contain this article.
And yesterday, “Wonkette” had a related post titled “Children at Recess.”
“Judging Samuel Alito”: This editorial will appear Sunday in The New York Times.
And The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel on Sunday will contain an editorial entitled “Nation demands honest answers.”
“Sam He Was”: Caren Deane Thomas has an op-ed today in The New York Times that begins, “When I recently received an invitation to a reunion of my Yale Law School class, it stirred memories of the astounding group of students I found when I arrived there in 1972. Bill and Hillary Rodham Clinton are the most famous, of course, but my classmates also include someone else who has made news lately: Sam Alito.”
“Black Students Lose Again”: Today in The New York Times, columnist John Tierney has an op-ed (TimesSelect subscription required) that begins, “Democrats once went to court to desegregate schools. But in Florida they’ve been fighting to kick black students out of integrated schools, and they’ve succeeded, thanks to the Democratic majority on the State Supreme Court.”
“Alito’s Challenge”: In Sunday’s edition of The Washington Post, columnist David S. Broder will have this op-ed.
“A beacon on the bench”: This editorial appears today in The Los Angeles Times.
A look at the seven current and former judges of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit scheduled to testify in favor of the confirmation of Circuit Judge Samuel A. Alito, Jr. to the U.S. Supreme Court: According to press reports (appearing today, among other places, in The New York Times, The Washington Post, and The Philadelphia Inquirer), five current and two former Third Circuit judges are scheduled to testify on Judge Alito’s behalf during next week’s confirmation hearing.
The seven are: Chief Judge Anthony J. Scirica, Circuit Judge Maryanne Trump Barry; Senior Circuit Judges Ruggero J. Aldisert, Leonard I. Garth, and Edward R. Becker, and former judges John J. Gibbons and Timothy K. Lewis.
I know about all of these judges as a result of having handled numerous appeals in front of the Third Circuit over nearly the past sixteen years and having clerked for a judge serving on the Third Circuit for two years before that. Here are my quick insights into these witnesses, beginning with the judges I know most well and ending with the judges I know least well.
Senior Judge Becker joined the Third Circuit in 1981 and served as the court’s chief judge from 1998 to 2003, at which point he turned 70 years old and took senior status. Judge Becker is justifiably regarded as one of the Third Circuit’s all-time greatest judges. He is a very active questioner at oral arguments, and he is famous for his very lengthy opinions (often sporting their own table of contents) that can rival law review articles for their detailed treatment of legal issues. Judge Becker discussed Judge Alito’s nomination at length on last Sunday’s broadcast (RealPlayer required) of C-SPAN‘s “America & the Courts.” Judge Becker has a long, very close friendship with Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter (R-PA), and like Senator Specter, Judge Becker has been undergoing cancer treatment.
Senior Judge Aldisert joined the Third Circuit in 1968 and served as the court’s chief judge in the mid-1980s. He too is rightfully regarded as one of the Third Circuit’s all-time greatest judges, and Judge Aldisert is also famous as the author of several books, including “Winning on Appeal” and books about the use of logic by judges and lawyers. During the time that Judge Alito has served on the Third Circuit, Judge Aldisert’s chambers have been based in California. Judge Aldisert participated in this blog’s “20 questions for the appellate judge” feature, and his interview can be accessed at this link.
Chief Judge Scirica is simply one of the nicest and kindest people you could ever hope to meet. Before becoming the Third Circuit’s chief judge, he headed the U.S. Courts Standing Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure, which oversees the development and amendments to all rules of procedure and evidence in the federal judicial system. He is a moderate and respected judge, who was formerly a Republican state legislator and a trial judge on both the state and then federal benches.
Senior Judge Garth, like Judge Alito, has his chambers in Newark, New Jersey, and Alito served as Judge Garth’s law clerk after Alito graduated from law school. Judge Garth is an active questioner at oral arguments, and if a lawyer (especially a government lawyer) is not answering those questions to Judge Garth’s satisfaction, he can become a brutal interrogator. There are also times when Judge Garth’s temper is evident in his dissenting opinions. I doubt it will be at all evident during his testimony at the confirmation hearings, where I’m sure that he will come across as the very nice person he ordinarily is.
Tim Lewis joined the Third Circuit in 1992, before he had reached the age of 40, and resigned from the Third Circuit in 1999, when he was 45 years of age. Although Lewis, like Alito, was nominated to the Third Circuit by the first President Bush, Lewis turned out to be one of the court’s more liberal judges. Two reasons are given for why Lewis resigned from the Third Circuit at such a young age. One is that he did not enjoy being an appellate judge as much as he had enjoyed serving as a U.S. District Judge. And the second reason, which I have heard from many reliable sources but have never independently confirmed, is said to be health-related. He now practices law at Schnader Harrison’s Washington, DC office. Lewis has always struck me as low-key and well-spoken, and, as his official U.S. Courts biography notes, he is African-American.
John J. Gibbons served as the Third Circuit’s chief judge from 1987 to 1990, at which point he resigned to return to the law firm he had helped found long before joining the bench. Since returning to private practice, Gibbons has handled many significant appeals before the Third Circuit. Judge Alito joined the Third Circuit in 1990 after Gibbons had retired, so it is impossible for Gibbons to testify about Judge Alito as a colleague on the bench. It is possible that they know each other well, however, because they are from the same area of northern New Jersey, and their backgrounds are similar in certain respects.
Judge Barry, aside from being Donald Trump’s sister, is based out of the same Newark, New Jersey courthouse as Judge Alito. President Clinton nominated Judge Barry to the Third Circuit, where she has served since 1999. Notably, Judge Barry appears to have worked very closely with Judge Alito at the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Newark in the late 1970s. Although I know Judge Barry least well of the seven current and former judges scheduled to testify in support of Judge Alito, on the social occasions on which I have spoken with her, I have found her to be plain-spoken and direct, and I imagine her testimony (as a Clinton nominee to the Third Circuit and as someone who worked closely with Judge Alito at the outset of his career as a lawyer) could be very interesting.
Update: A friend who has practiced extensively before the Third Circuit for many more years than I have has emailed with some suggested edits and additions to this post, and I have implemented many of them. The same correspondent cleverly refers to these seven judges as a “Becker’s half-dozen.”
“Hearings a Test for Democrats and Alito”: This article will appear Sunday in The New York Times.
“Spy suspect’s lawyer asks how calls were wiretapped”: The Chicago Tribune today contains an article that begins, “Lawyers for a Des Plaines man accused of being an Iraqi spy want to know if his phone calls were recorded under the Bush administration’s controversial domestic surveillance program.”
And in related news, The Los Angeles Times reports today that “Legal Support for Bush’s Spy Actions Is Thin, Report Says; A court probably wouldn’t back up his power claims, two authors tell Congress.” The Congressional Research Service memorandum issued yesterday bears the title “Presidential Authority to Conduct Warrantless Electronic Surveillance to Gather Foreign Intelligence Information.”
