“Weighing the Consequences of Telling Others the Truth”: Adam Liptak will have this column (TimesSelect temporary pass-through link) in Monday’s edition of The New York Times focusing on the D.C. Circuit‘s en banc oral argument this past week in the lawsuit captioned Boehner v. McDermott.

“Murphy and the Sixteenth Amendment in Relation to the Taxation of Non-Excludable Personal Injury Awards”: Law Professor Joseph M. Dodge has posted this essay (abstract with links for download) online at SSRN (via “Legal Theory Blog“).

If there were ever any reason to doubt whether the three-judge panel that originally decided this case was seriously in error, Professor Dodge’s article should remove all doubt. At the article’s conclusion states at its outset, “The Murphy panel decision should not only be reversed, but it should be condemned in the strongest terms.” Fortunately, the three-judge D.C. Circuit panel whose decision is the subject of Professor Dodge’s article has recently granted panel rehearing to reconsider that ruling.

My earlier coverage of that ruling, and links to other web-based commentary, can be accessed here, here, here, and here.

“Conservative Judicial Activism? Inventing a constitutional right to ‘medical self-defense.'” Law Professor Robert F. Nagel will have this essay in the February 5, 2007 issue of The Weekly Standard.

“Recent Supreme Court rulings affect local trial; Buttons banned, judge mulls sentencing issue”: This article appears today in The Monterey County Herald.

“A Pillar of American Justice”: In the February 12, 2007 issue of The Nation, Charles A. Miller will have an essay that begins, “A great American was born 150 years ago. His name was Louis Brandeis. From 1916 to 1939, he served on the US Supreme Court.”

“Taps: How do you make Alberto Gonzales stop lying?” This editorial will appear in the February 5, 2007 issue of The New Republic.

“Effort to make court arguments confidential smacks of ‘Robitis'”: Glenn Gilbert has this op-ed today in The Oakland Press of Pontiac, Michigan.

“Judge ‘Supreme Court’ on merits, not on its limits”: The Orlando Sentinel today contains this review of the PBS program “The Supreme Court,” due to air this Wednesday.

The Oregonian today contains a review headlined “Don’t rush to judgment on ‘The Supreme Court’; The PBS special, which covers the institution’s complex history and issues, really is exciting stuff.”

The Arizona Republic contains a review headlined “5 reasons to watch PBS’ ‘Supreme Court.’”

And The Honolulu Advertiser reports that “KHET to air discussions tied to ‘Supreme Court.’”

I previously linked here to Pulitzer Prize-winning historian David J. Garrow’s review of the television program and related book.

I have watched on DVD the first two hours of the PBS program, and I enjoyed the second hour more than the first. Those first two hours are scheduled to air together this Wednesday, with the final two hours of the broadcast scheduled to air one week later.

Update: The DePaulia reports that “Law to share insight in television series.”

And Indiana University has posted online a press release headlined “IU law professor to appear on PBS’ ‘The Supreme Court.’”

“The Truth About Clarence Thomas: He’s an independent voice, not a Scalia lackey.” This op-ed by ABC News correspondent Jan Crawford Greenburg, which originally appeared in last Monday’s edition of The Wall Street Journal, is now freely available online at this link via OpinionJournal.

Jan’s tour in support of her new book takes her to the Chicago area tomorrow and Tuesday.

“Are Prisons Driving Prisoners Mad?” This article will appear in the February 5, 2007 issue of Time magazine.

“Libby trial shows unsealed lips in CIA; Though the agency has sought to protect covert identities, the leak case reveals that the secrecy rules are sometimes ignored”: The Los Angeles Times contains this article today.

“Convict’s slow road to death; Ronald Chambers’ lethal injection date has been delayed more than 30 years as the legal process takes its course”: This article appears today in The Los Angeles Times.

“Church-state ‘wall’ coming back down?” The Washington Times contains this article today.

“From Court To Jester: Without Dissent, Alfalfa Club Honors Sandra Day O’Connor.” This article appears today in The Washington Post.

“In the Penalty Phase, All One’s Secrets Revealed”: According to an article published today in The New York Times, “The degree of scrutiny afforded a capital defendant is enough to mortify anyone who has ever been a child, dated a girl, gotten a haircut or tried to dress fashionably. This is the full probe. All your secrets revealed. Some defendants consider it either more agonizing than death, a sentence no federal jury in New York has prescribed for a half-century, or at least worth a big gamble to avoid.”

“Scalia Dons the Robes of a Scholar for a Day”: This article appears today in The New York Times.

“Google’s Moon Shot: The quest for the universal library.” Jeffrey Toobin will have this “Annals of Law” article in the February 5, 2007 issue of The New Yorker.

“Free speech at hub of judge, panel clash; Jurist argues that Constitution, court ruling protect his off-the-bench remarks”: The Arkansas Democrat-Gazette today contains an article that begins, “In his fight with the state panel that disciplines judges, Appeals Court Judge Wendell Griffen claims his controversial political remarks are protected by a U.S. Supreme Court decision. The outspoken jurist isn’t the first to claim the 2002 decision, Republican Party of Minnesota v. White, shields speech by judges when they are off the bench. Legal scholars say a broad interpretation of the court’s opinion could save Griffen from censure, but the few courts in other states that have tested the decision haven’t always been sympathetic to those claims, at least when cases center on campaign promises made by candidates for judgeships, a situation a little different from Griffen’s case.”