“Roeder trial: Judge rules out manslaughter option.” The Kansas City Star has this news update.

The Wichita Eagle has a news update headlined “Jury to decide whether Scott Roeder is guilty of first-degree murder, aggravated assault.”

And The Associated Press reports that “No manslaughter defense in abortion doc’s slaying.”

“Michigan Supreme Court rules against Fieger”: Dawson Bell of The Detroit Free Press has a news update that begins, “In the first test of its new judicial disqualification procedure, a surprisingly unified Michigan Supreme Court declined today a request by Southfield attorney Geoffrey Fieger to remove the court’s three most conservative justices from hearing a case in which Fieger represents a man whose wife was killed in a transit van accident at Detroit Metro Airport.”

“Obama picked odd time and place to jab high court”: The Associated Press has this report.

“Court’s ruling on campaign funding draws fire”: Financial Times has this news update.

Agence France-Presse reports that “White House shrugs off Alito spat.”

At “The Caucus” blog of The New York Times, David Kirkpatrick has a post titled “White House v. the Supreme Court.”

At the web site of The New Republic, law professor Jeffrey Rosen has a blog post titled “Obama’s War With the Court Just Escalated.”

At the web site of The New Yorker, Jeffrey Toobin has a blog post titled “Alito’s Face.”

At ABCNews.com, Terry Moran has an essay titled “State of the Union: The Slam, the Scowl and the Separation of Powers; Obama, Alito and the Political Theater of a Constitutional Lesson.” And Jake Tapper has a blog post titled “Supreme Court Historian: After President’s ‘Insult,’ Won’t Be Surprised If Supreme Court Doesn’t Attend Next Year’s State of the Union Address.”

At the “PostPartisan” blog of The Washington Post, Eva Rodriguez has an entry titled “On Alito’s State of the Union head wag, you’re all wrong.”

And at the web site of The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Bob Barr has a blog post titled “Obama insults Supreme Court with uncivil remarks.”

“High court wants more proof for Jessica’s Law”: The Associated Press has a report that begins, “The California Supreme Court wants the government to show more proof that confining sexually violent predators indefinitely is constitutional.”

My earlier coverage of this ruling from earlier today appears here.

Seventh Circuit examines the Class Action Fairness Act’s “home-state exception” to federal court removal: Thanks to the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, the Seventh Circuit gets to decide a case involving the extent to which Kansas residents are the users of cell phones with Kansas area codes. Senior Circuit Judge Terence T. Evans is the author of today’s ruling for a unanimous three-judge panel

Second Circuit decides remainder of challenge to New York State’s current felon disenfranchisement laws: You can access today’s ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit at this link.

Today’s rulings of note from the Supreme Court of California: A minor’s statement while in police custody that “I want my mommy!” will no longer suffice simply by itself to invoke the minor’s Fifth Amendment right to remain silent as the result of a decision issued today. The statement may suffice to invoke the right to counsel, however, if the mommy also happens to be a lawyer.

And, by means of a separate ruling issued today, California’s highest court has reinstated an equal protection challenge to a California law that subjects sexually violent predators — but not other ex-felons, such as mentally disordered offenders — to indefinite civil commitment.

“Sen. Leahy: Court’s decision most partisan since Bush v. Gore.” The Hill provides this news update.

And at “The BLT: The Blog of Legal Times,” Tony Mauro has a post titled “Leahy Lashes Out at Citizens United Ruling.”

The prepared text of today’s remarks on the floor of the U.S. Senate by Senator Patrick J. Leahy (D-VT) can be accessed here.

“On the stand, Scott Roeder admits to killing George Tiller”: The Wichita Eagle has this news update.

And The Associated Press reports that “Defendant testifies he killed Kan. abortion doctor.”

“Supreme Court moves right, focus on social issues”: James Vicini of Reuters has this report.

“Alito disparages Obama’s Supreme Court criticism”: The Associated Press has this report.

At “The BLT: The Blog of Legal Times,” Tony Mauro has posts titled “High Court is Rare Topic for State of the Union Speeches” and “Justice Alito’s State of the Union Dissent.”

Robert Barnes of The Washington Post has a news update headlined “History plays a role in Obama-Alito flap.”

Jeffrey Toobin, CNN Senior Legal Analyst, has an essay headlined “Alito’s reaction to Obama was fair.” CNN.com also reports that “Gloves come off after Obama rips Supreme Court ruling,”

Politico.com has reports headlined “Orrin Hatch: Obama ‘rude’ to court” and “Sen. Russ Feingold: Samuel Alito behavior ‘inappropriate.’”

In today’s edition of The Wall Street Journal, my former Columbia College classmate Naftali Bendavid has an article headlined “At This Obama Speech, Courtesy From Ascendant Republicans.”

At her “Crossroads” blog, CBS News correspondent Jan Crawford has a post titled “Obama Skewers Court–and Signals Change Ahead.”

Slate’s Dahlia Lithwick has a blog post titled “Leave Alito Alone.”

Blogging at the web site of The Atlantic Monthly, Andrew Cohen has a post titled “SOTU: Anatomy of a ‘Slam’ That Wasn’t.”

At Salon.com, Glenn Greenwald has a blog post titled “Justice Alito’s conduct and the Court’s credibility.”

And “InstaPundit” rounds up much more online coverage in posts you can access here and here.

Appellate two-fer: This morning’s oral argument at the Third Circuit seemed to go very well. Once that court posts the oral argument audio online, I will link to it.

This afternoon, I will be filing in the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania a petition for allowance of appeal — the Pa. state court equivalent of a cert. petition in the U.S. Supreme Court.

This afternoon’s filing would seem to have a better than average chance of being granted, because it presents questions of separation of powers and judicial deference to the legislative branch. Moreover, Pennsylvania’s highest court has already recognized that these particular questions would be deserving of resolution in an appropriate case.

You can access this afternoon’s filing at this link, the decision sought to be reviewed at this link, and another law firm’s online critique of that decision at this link. And for those who want to see what a petition for allowance of appeal that has actually been granted by Pennsylvania’s highest court looks like, you can access two such examples here and here.