“Let Noncitizens Contribute to U.S. Elections”: In Wednesday’s edition of The New York Times, Paul Sherman will have an op-ed that begins, “On Friday the United States Supreme Court will meet to decide whether to hear Bluman v. F.E.C., a First Amendment challenge to a federal law that prohibits noncitizens living in the United States (but who don’t have green cards) from making contributions to American political candidates or from spending money on independent speech to influence elections.”
“Disgraced journalist makes his case to court”: Bob Egelko of The San Francisco Chronicle has a news update that begins, “Lawyers for disgraced journalist Stephen Glass told California’s highest court Tuesday that the State Bar is unfairly demanding ‘sackcloth, ashes and a vow of poverty’ for Glass to demonstrate that he is morally qualified to practice law.”
The Associated Press reports that “Disgraced journalist makes his case to Calif court.”
And at the “Am Law Daily” blog, Scott Graham has a post titled “Pressing Bar Admission Fight, Notorious Fabulist Stephen Glass Hires High-Profile Appellate Team.” The blog has posted at this link the supplemental brief filed today on Glass’s behalf.
“Montana Tests Supreme Court Political-Spending Ruling”: Jess Bravin will have this article Wednesday in The Wall Street Journal. You can freely access the full text of the article via Google News.
My earlier coverage of the Montana Supreme Court’s ruling appears here and here.
In appeal that I orally argued on the plaintiff’s behalf in April 2011, the Pa. Superior Court today has reinstated a $28 million punitive damages award in favor of woman whose breast cancer was caused by ingesting hormone replacement therapy medications: You can access today’s ruling of the Superior Court of Pennsylvania in Kendall v. Wyeth, Inc. at this link. My earlier coverage appears here.
The ruling in the Kendall case is one of two related HRT punitive damages rulings that the Pa. Superior Court issued today. The other decision issued in Barton v. Wyeth Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a case that I did not argue on appeal, and you can access that ruling at this link.
“A Federal Judge Responds Defiantly to Chief Justice Roberts; There is a growing gulf between the Supreme Court justices and the rank-and-file federal judges who decide the merits of tens of thousands of cases each year”: Andrew Cohen has this post online at The Atlantic.
“Second Guesses: When criminal defendants attack their trial lawyers’ competence.” Lawrence Hurley has this article in the January 2012 issue of California Lawyer magazine.
“Decided by a nose? Court ponders drug dog’s sniff.” The Associated Press has this report. We are now only one post away from hitting the otorhinolaryngology trifecta.
“Ear candles” on appeal: Sadly, it took until the year 2012 for me to learn that placing a burning candle into one’s ear happens to be something. (See, e.g., “Late Show with David Letterman” skit titled “Is this Anything?“)
Today; the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit issued an opinion that begins, “Ear candles are hollow tubes made of fabric soaked in beeswax or paraffin; a user places one end in his ear and sets the other on fire with an open flame.” Additional information on the practice can be found in this Wikipedia entry.
“California’s death penalty: Unusual but not cruel; Capital punishment in California should be streamlined, not abolished.” Charles Johnson has this op-ed today in The Los Angeles Times.
“N.C. Supreme Court justice is also a farmer”: This article appears today in The Salisbury (N.C.) Post.
“Juries must answer death penalty question for mentally disabled; Pennsylvania court decision sets method to implement landmark U.S. Supreme Court ruling”: Peter Hall has this article today in The Allentown Morning Call.
My earlier coverage of the ruling appears at this link.
“Supreme Court: The recusal question; If justices recuse themselves from a case, or refuse to do so when asked, an explanation is warranted.” This editorial appears today in The Los Angeles Times.
