Senators on the Judiciary Committee are likely to ask Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr. about matters ranging from his initial refusal to recuse himself from a case involving a mutual funds company that handled his investments to his membership in a conservative Princeton University alumni group that some say was anti-black and anti-women.

As in the John Roberts hearings, committee members also will take advantage of television cameras and use Judge Alito as a sounding board for issues of special concern to them or their constituents.

But the hearings are expected to be dominated by the following issues:

Abortion and precedent
In 1991, Judge Alito dissented from a 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision striking down a provision in Pennsylvania's Abortion Control Act requiring married women seeking an abortion to notify their husbands. The Supreme Court rejected his view when it reviewed the 3^rd Circuit ruling in its 1992 decision in Planned Parenthood v. Casey.

In a November 1985 application for a promotion in the Reagan Justice Department, Judge Alito wrote that he was honored as a lawyer in the solicitor general's office to "help to advance legal positions in which I believe very strongly [including the argument] that the Constitution does not protect a right to abortion."

Earlier that year, Judge Alito wrote in a memo to the solicitor general that the administration should pursue a legal strategy that would "promote the goals of bringing about the eventual overruling of Roe v. Wade."

Presidential power
In light of the controversy over warrantless electronic surveillance by the National Security Agency, several senators plan to probe Judge Alito's view -- reflected in a speech and in Justice department documents -- about the inherent constitutional authority of the president.

Judge Alito is also likely to be questioned about a 1984 memo he wrote as an assistant to the solicitor general in which he expressed the view that former Attorney General John Mitchell could not be sued for money damages for authorizing a wiretap of anti-war activists. Judge Alito added, however, that the government shouldn't press that view in the Supreme Court because "absolute immunity arguments are difficult to advance successfully."

Individual rights
Critics who say Judge Alito reflexively sides with police and prosecutors repeatedly have cited three cases that are likely to figure in senators' questions.

In Doe v. Groody (2004) involving damage suits against police who searched a 10-year-old girl during a drug raid, Judge Alito dissented from the majority's holding that the police did not enjoy qualified immunity to lawsuit.

In Rompilla v. Horn (2004), Judge Alito wrote the majority opinion in this case denying the appeal of Ronald Rompilla, who was sentenced to death for the 1988 murder of an Allentown, Pa., tavern owner. Judge Alito rejected Mr. Rompilla's claim that his defense had been inadequate because his lawyer didn't look at prosecution files that could have pointed to various mitigating factors. The Supreme Court reversed and set aside the death sentence.

In Riley v. Taylor (2001), Judge Alito dissented from a ruling that a prosecutor improperly used his peremptory challenge to exclude African-American jurors from the murder trial of an African-American defendant. Disputing the majority's "simplistic analysis" that race was the reason for the exclusion, Judge Alito compared it to the assumption that because five out of six recent presidential elections were won by left-handed candidates voters were biased against right-handed people.

Job discrimination
Critics say Judge Alito has shown a pattern of resistance to claims of discrimination on the job, and have cited two cases involved hotel employees who complained of bias.

In Sheridan v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours and Co. (1996) involving a hotel employee who alleged that she was denied a promotion because of her sex, Judge Alito was the lone dissenter in a 10-1 ruling making it easier for a plaintiff to have her allegations brought to trial.

In Bray v. Marriott Hotels (1997), an African-American employee of a different hotel claimed she was passed over for a promotion in favor of a white employee and wanted to cite violations of internal hiring procedures and conflicting explanations by supervisors as evidence of bias. Judge Alito dissented in the 2-1 decision and warned that the majority's approach would lead to "an unwarranted extension of the anti-discrimination laws" because employers often fail to follow their internal procedures "to the letter."

States' rights
Democratic and Republican senators have criticized the Supreme Court for overturning federal laws on the grounds that they infringe on states' rights. In his 1985 Justice Department job application, Judge Alito described himself as a believer in "federalism." Senators are likely to ask him about two decisions in this area of the law.

In United States v. Rybar (1996), Judge Alito dissented from a 2-1 ruling upholding the constitutionality of a federal law making it a crime to possess or transfer a machine gun. Judge Alito wrote that the machine-gun ban was "the closest extant relative" of a law voided by the Supreme Court in 1995 that banned the possession of firearms near schools.

In Chittister v. Pennsylvania Department of Community and Economic Development (2000), Judge Alito wrote that a state employee could not sue the state for denying him sick leave guaranteed by the federal Family and Medical Leave Act.