President George W. Bush will nominate Samuel Alito for Supreme Court at 8:00 am ET today, 10/31/2005.

CNN has the reporting, as does FoxNews.

James Joyner has more coverage, as does Jay Tea and Stop the ACLU.
Julian Sanchez says it’s “Trick, or Treat?” time for the headline writers.

Based on various comments over the past weekend on the talk shows, it may be a fight. But if it’s a fight for what’s right, I say, bring it on. Many are casting him in the mold of Scalia, and Harry Reid, who didn’t get his way with Miers, is not too happy, which is probably a good sign.

But the Senate’s top Democrat, minority leader Harry Reid of Nevada, raised the possibility of “a lot of problems” if Bush settles on Alito, who sits on the Philadelphia-based 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, to succeed O’Connor, a swing voter on abortion and other social issues.
…
For instance, Alito, 55, wrote the lone dissent in a case striking down a Pennsylvania law that included a provision requiring women seeking abortions to inform their husbands.

The case later was appealed to the Supreme Court, which voted 6-3 in 1992 to strike down the spousal notification requirement. In his dissent, former Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist said he agreed with Alito’s reasoning. [MZ notes: Patterico reviews this decision in detail here]

Alito’s “is not one of the names that I’ve suggested to the president,” Democratic leader Reid told CNN. “In fact, I’ve done the opposite. I think it would create a lot of problems.”

bRight and Early (via Jawa), says it’s not Halloween, it’s Christmas!
PoliBlog wonders: “So, how many times do you think we will hear “Scalito” in the next 24 hours? Does Vegas have an over/under yet?”

Sister Toldjah has a bit of a roundup, as does Michelle.

PoliPundit thinks confirmation is all but assured, and does a roll call. [UPDATE: But Taegan Goddard points out that the more important question is whether the Democrats have enough votes to force a filibuster.]

Ed Whelan says “Congratulations, President Bush!“:

By any objective criteria, it is doubtful that there is anyone now or in recent decades (yes, not even Chief Justice Roberts) whose experience and qualifications better prepare him for the Supreme Court.

The BBC has a brief profile.

1950 - born in Trenton, New Jersey
1972 - graduates from Princeton
1975 - earns Doctor of Law degree at Yale
1981-85 - assistant to US solicitor general
1985-87 - deputy assistant to US attorney general
1987-1990 - US attorney for district of New Jersey
1990-present - judge US court of appeals

Many conservative bloggers are initially reacting with “thrilled” - including Southern Appeal, a Typical Joe (well, actually it’s his mom who would be thrilled), and Confirm Them.

Conservative Outpost reminds us that he has twice been confirmed unanimously.

There should be absolutely NO DOUBT among conservatives as to his credentials, (or those of the academic “elite”, as he’s a Yale/Princeton man). Rated well-qualified by the ABA…and confirmed twice by the US Senate - unanimously. I’m sure we’ll all be “treated” to Halloween references by those on the left today, but no matter. This is great news folks. In Alito we get exactly what we want (a solid conservative) and what we need (a fight that will re-galvanize conservatives).

BlogsForBush has started the Confirm Alito Coalition.

The RNC talking points are in. Qualified. Experienced. Respected.

And of course, there has to be the requisite fake Alito blog.

Others are scared. And are yelling “Goodbye choice.” The KOS thread is a fun read. Fired Up America says it’s an appointment from weakness. Howard Friedman looks at this decision in Blackhawk v. Pennsylvania. Arguing with Signposts notes: “Alito appears to be everything Miers was not in terms of qualifications. He is also a “he”, which is bound to raise some hackles.” Chuck Currie thinks that Conservatives who are “opposed to basic civil rights for women and other minorities” will support this nomination (my guess is that Chuck, too, is opposed to these basic civil rights for women and other minorities who are not born yet). And also, what does the phrase “women and other minorities” mean? Are women currently a minority? A class of people maybe, but minority? That’s a stretch.

Pandagon screeches: “The Chimp bowed down at the altar of Dobson, Bauer, Schlafly, and the rest of the AmTaliban to save his “base” of the wild-eyed Freeper set, nominating Samuel Alito.” … but then goes on to ask this legitimate question, which many on the right would have liked an answer to as well: “how on earth did Harriet Miers rate ahead of Sam[uel Alito]?”

Ott spoofs Schumer: “hopelessly overqualified.”

Captain Ed says the Democrats blew their chance.

Democrats blew their one opportunity to get a moderate on the bench during the Bush administration by waiting until Miers withdrew before defending her. Prior to that, Charles Schumer and Pat Leahy took great pains to call her questionnaire response “insulting” and echoing conservative complaints that her resume seemed too lightweight for a nomination to the Supreme Court. Had they pledged to support her, Bush likely would have allowed her to coast through the hearings to a floor vote despite the dissatisfaction on the right.

He also notes:

Democrats may well try obstructionism, but they stand to lose the filibuster if they try — and if John Paul Stevens steps down or dies during the next two years, the path will open up for Janice Rogers Brown to take his place.

Ian wishes it would have been Brown.

Not surprisingly, Planned Parenthood weighs in with: “Planned Parenthood opposes the nomination of Alito because he would undermine basic reproductive rights.” Of course, they mean only the reproductive rights of those who are already born. If you are a young person who hasn’t yet taken a breath, you have no rights at all according to planned parenthood. No right to life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness. And PFAW has similary lambasted the president’s choice.

It’s interesting, though again not suprising, to hear the Democrats looking not for who is most qualified, but for who has the right color and gender. (Which, incidentally, seems like what Bush did originally with Harriet Miers).

Confederate Yankee thinks the left will now shriek themselves into oblivion. California Conservative says that conservatives should now keep their powder dry.

California Conservative is doing open trackbacks, as we are here.

Drudge is splashing that “Scalito” is ethncially insensitive. “… the DNC’s anti-Italian American talkers…”

Howard Kurtz (via Nate):

This is a winning political move. Alito is at least as qualified as Roberts, and his Casey opinion will not sustain a convincing filibuster. The Democrats seem trapped here. Reid has warned the president not to nominate Alito. And despite the narrow and non-substantive character of Alito’s dissent in Casey, the Dems will be forced by their groups to make abortion the issue. So if there is no filibuster, this is going to come off as a huge victory for the president.

UPDATE: Welcome those of you who arrived at this post from http://www.SamuelAAlito.com! Feel free to look around at our other posts. Down the road, this domain name will probably point to a full featured site with lots of links and info about Judge Alito, but for now, it points here for your reading and linking pleasure!

And Captain Ed says: “Expect Alito to get confirmed, 65-35.” He arrives at this after analyzing the chances of a filibuster, including the perspectives of one of the “Gang of 14,” Lindsey Graham.

Ann Althouse makes the case that Alito is stronger than Roberts.