Think Progress has the official list of who helped Judge Sam Alito prep for his confirmation hearings. (pdf)

Senator Lindsay Graham is not on the list.

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.

Jose Padilla was denied bail in Florida today and pleaded not guilty to the charges against him.

In denying bail, U.S. Magistrate Judge Barry Garber sided with prosecutors who said Padilla likely would flee to avoid trial and that the charges - including allegations that he attended an al-Qaida training camp in Afghanistan - made him dangerous.

Miami lawyer David Markus was there and has a recap of the hearing.

The Delaware Supreme Court has overturned the death sentence of former lawyer Thomas Capano, convicted of murdering Anne Marie Fahey.

The Court determined the penalty phase was flawed because the jury was not unanimous in its finding that the murder occurred as a result of Capano's substantial planning and pre-meditation.

This was one of those high-profile cases featured prominently by the cable news networks prior to and during trial.

The Sentencing Project has completed a (pdf) new report on post-Booker federal crack sentences:

The report coincides with the one-year anniversary of the historic U.S. Supreme Court decision in United States v. Booker, in which the Court struck down the mandatory application of the federal sentencing guidelines as unconstitutional, but kept the guidelines intact by requiring that they be consulted in an advisory capacity. Examining published court decisions, the new report assesses how judges have utilized their expanded range of discretion in one of the most contentious areas of federal sentencing, crack cocaine offenses.

For those of you unfamiliar with the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, crack cocaine is punished at the rate of 100:1 compared to powder cocaine sentences. Here are the report's key findings:

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.

From Students for a Sensible Drug Policy:

The Drug Czar is going on the road to convince schools to take advantage of millions of dollars in federal grant money made available for the express purpose of testing teens' urine. Parents everywhere should be "pissed off" that their hard-earned tax dollars are being flushed down the toilet - literally - on programs that usurp family decision making and do nothing to stop young people from using drugs.

The cities are Orlando, San Diego, Falls Church, VA and Milwaukee, WI.

If you live in or around any of these cities, please get in touch with SSDP as soon as possible to find out how you can counteract the Drug Czar's propaganda machine when it comes to town. Students, parents, and activists had a great time raining on the Drug Czar's parade last year. Let's make sure he and his cronies know that we'll continue to be there providing the truth wherever and whenever they proliferate lies.

Here's their full webpage on student drug testing. Here's a small portion:

With all the Alito reading I'm doing--150+ emails a day, news articles, transcripts, blogs, etc., there's little time to actually blog. There is other news going on, particularly in death penalty cases. Here's a few:

• FBI to Recheck Fingerprint Analysis in All Death Cases (after flaw in Brandon Mayfield case exposed

• Should DNA Results Lead to New Trials

• Panel Calls for Moratorium on Executions

A judge in Michigan, Kent County Circuit Court Judge Dennis C. Kolenda, has decided to ignore the Supreme Court and deny poor people the right to appointed counsel for their appeals.

The ACLU has filed a class action against the Judge.

In a move reserved for extraordinary cases, the American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan today filed a class action in the Michigan Court of Appeals to force a Michigan judge to comply with a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling granting poor people the right to attorneys on appeal.

“Thumbing your nose at the U.S. Supreme Court is almost unheard of in the judicial system,” said Kary Moss, ACLU of Michigan Executive Director. “And, in this case, the judge seems to believe he is above the law, or at least above the Supreme Court.”

by TChris

The First Amendment right to free expression applies in courthouses, even if some might be offended by the message expressed. The Supreme Court in 1971 reversed the conviction of a man who wore a shirt in a courthouse that used a four-letter-word (yes, that one) to express the man’s negative feelings about the draft. The Court noted that the statute didn't address courtroom decorum, but was applicable across the state, rendering his presence in the courthouse irrelevant to the First Amendment inquiry.

A Massachusetts judge is unwilling to extend that precedent to protect the free speech rights of courthouse observers who express a message that is popular among criminal defense lawyers: "Stop Snitching." Expressing displeasure with tattle-tales seems harmless, but the judge viewed the shirts as an attempt to intimidate witnesses, and has banned the shirts from the courthouse.

[Judge Robert] Mulligan's policy, which takes effect immediately, says that anyone wearing "Stop Snitching" clothes will be barred from courthouses, and anyone seen wearing such clothing inside will be ejected.