Knights-Ridder News Service yesterday defended its reporters' analysis of Judge Alito's 311 published opinions:

"During his 15 years on the federal bench, Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito has worked quietly but resolutely to weave a conservative legal agenda into the fabric of the nation's laws." Assisted by Washington bureau researcher Tish Wells, Henderson and Mintz spent nearly a month reading all of Alito's 311 published opinions, which are available in a commercial database or in the archives of the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia, where Alito has sat for 15 years.

They concluded that, "although Alito's opinions are rarely written with obvious ideology, he's seldom sided with a criminal defendant, a foreign national facing deportation, an employee alleging discrimination or consumers suing big business."

The original article is here.

With all the hoopla over the dust-up between Sens. Kennedy and Specter and Mrs. Alito's tears, it's important not to overlook one of the more substantive moments at Wednesday's hearing: Judge Alito refused to say Roe v. Wade was settled law and left open the possibility of revisiting it.

When Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.) peppered Alito with questions about whether the ruling is "the settled law of the land," the nominee responded: "If 'settled' means that it can't be reexamined, then that's one thing. If 'settled' means that it is a precedent that is entitled to respect . . . then it is a precedent that is protected, entitled to respect under the doctrine of stare decisis." Stare decisis is a legal principle that, in Latin, means "to stand by that which is decided."

We were waiting for some fireworks at Judge Sam Alito's confirmation hearing. Tuesday was definitely dullsville. We wanted sparks to fly. We wanted to hear

Bell's going to ring
Hear the alarms
Better tell the fire chief
To quit playing cards

Senators Kennedy and Schumer came close. with a raucous-ey dust-up over Kennedy's request for the CAP records. Crooks and Liars has the video. Think Progress has the timeline.

Then there was Mrs. Alito's tears, seized on by the MSM as a defining moment of the day.

Please. While I'm not convinced as is Jane they were crocodile tears, engineered by Sen. Lindsay Graham, I do think they were pretty lame. Read James Wolcott who calls Ms. Alito the "new first lady of the American Theater." Then again, consider this, from Time Magazine Wednesday night:

The always-alert Creative Response Concepts, a conservative public relations firm, sent this bulletin: "Former Alito clerk Gary Rubman witnessed Mrs. Alito leaving her husband's confirmation in tears and is available for interviews, along with other former Alito clerks who know her personally and are very upset about this development."

I also think Lindsay Graham has some explaining to do about his dual role as murder board coach and hearing officer.

As to the Democratic Senators, their questioning was much improved today. Here's the transcript.

by TChris

Judge Alito’s testimony embraced an isolationist’s view of the law (discussed in this post) that is often echoed by members of the extreme right:

"I don't think it's appropriate or useful to look to foreign law in interpreting the provisions of our Constitution," Judge Alito said in response to questions from Senator Tom Coburn, Republican of Oklahoma, in the third day of the judge's confirmation hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

"I think the Framers would be stunned by the idea that the Bill of Rights is to be interpreted by taking a poll of the countries of the world," Judge Alito said. "The purpose of the Bill of Rights was to give Americans rights that were recognized practically nowhere else in the world at the time. The Framers did not want Americans to have the rights of people in France or the rights of people in Russia or any of the other countries on the continent of Europe at the time; they wanted them to have the rights of Americans."

No member of the Supreme Court believes that foreign law carries the force of precedent or deserves controlling weight when interpreting the Constitution. No member of the Court bases an understanding of the Bill of Rights on a “poll.” These are the impressions that extremists on the right falsely convey, and it is disturbing that Judge Alito did not disavow these fundamental misunderstandings.

The Washington Post has the morning and afternoon hearing transcripts of Judge Alito's testimony today.

As predicted, much of today's confirmation hearing concerned abortion rights. As GW law prof Jonathan Turley points out in USA Today,

The obsession with abortion in American politics has had an anaerobic effect on past confirmation hearings, sucking the air out of other issues. For Alito, this may have the welcomed effect of obscuring a more troubling question from his past writings and cases: Alito's extreme views of government authority over citizens' rights.

Turley also opines:

Despite my agreement with Alito on many issues, I believe that he would be a dangerous addition to the court in already dangerous times for our constitutional system. Alito's cases reveal an almost reflexive vote in favor of government, a preference based not on some overriding principle but an overriding party.

In my years as an academic and a litigator, I have rarely seen the equal of Alito's bias in favor of the government. To put it bluntly, when it comes to reviewing government abuse, Samuel Alito is an empty robe.

Everyone is blogging the Alito hearings. I'm not going to do a play-by-play, I only got to watch bits and pieces and here's the transcript from this morning.

Of particular interest, Sen. Leahy questioned Judge Alito on his membership in Concerned Alumni of Princeton, a group that advocated against having women at Princeton. While at Princeton, Judge Alito was a member of this group. He listed it on a job application for the Reagan Administration. Today, while not denying he was a member, he says he has searched his memory and doesn't recall it, and therefore, he must not have been an active member.

Supreme Court confirmation hearings for Judge Sam Alito begin tomorrow. According to Bloomberg News, Sens. Schumer and Kennedy have not ruled out a filibuster.

This New York Times editorial succinctly describes the hot-button issues:

He has a lengthy and often troubling record he will have to explain away. As a government lawyer, he worked to overturn Roe v. Wade. He has disturbing beliefs on presidential power - a critical issue for the country right now. He has worked to sharply curtail Congress's power to pass laws and protect Americans. He may not even believe in "one person one vote."

The Times also points out that Alito's confirmation is not a done deal in the eyes of the public.

In a new Harris poll, just 34 percent of those surveyed said they thought he should be confirmed, while 31 percent said he should not, and 34 percent were unsure. Nearly 70 percent said they would oppose Judge Alito's nomination if they thought he would vote to make abortion illegal - which it appears he might well do.

Time Magazine reports the White House intends to play up the debate over Judge Sam Alito's nomination to the Supreme Court -- hoping it will distract us from the Washington scandals of Tom DeLay and Jack Abramoff.

Republican officials say they are so worried about the Abramoff problem that they are now inclined to stoke a fight with Democrats over the confirmation of Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court in an effort to turn the page from the lobbying investigation. Outside groups plan to spend heavily, and the White House will engage in some tit for tat with Democrats as the hearings heat up.

Fat chance. We'll be reporting on both all week, and encourage everyone else not to let up on the scandal news while they cover the Alito hearings.

The New York Times opines that Judge Sam Alito has an excessive zeal for presidential power.

[His] memos are part of a broader pattern of elevating the presidency above the other branches of government. In his judicial opinions, Judge Alito has shown a lack of respect for Congressional power - notably when he voted to strike down Congress's ban on machine guns as exceeding its constitutional authority. He has taken a cramped view of the Fourth Amendment and other constitutional provisions that limit executive power.

The Times urges Senators to ensure that Alito is on the side of the Constitution, not the President. Senator Leahy issued this statement Friday alerting Judge Alito that he would be questioned closely on his views about presidential power and checks and balances.

The National Archives today released additional memos written by Judge Sam Alito, including one in 1985 that advocated overturning Roe v. Wade.

Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito wrote in a June 1985 memo that the landmark Roe v. Wade ruling legalizing abortion should be overturned, a finding certain to enliven January's confirmation hearings. In a recommendation to the solicitor general on filing a friend-of- court brief, Alito said that the government "should make clear that we disagree with Roe v. Wade and would welcome the opportunity to brief the issue of whether, and if so to what extent, that decision should be overruled."

In another memo, he supported the ability of government officials to order domestic wiretaps:

American Progress is hosting a blogger conference call on Judge Sam Alito at 3pm ET. If you'd like to participate, here are the details:

The regular call-in line is (888) 665-1701, and the conference ID number is 3461465.

Speakers include Paul Begala, Judd Legum , David Halperin and me. You will be able to ask questions.