“No sanctions for Bush lawyers who approved waterboarding, report will say”: This article will appear Sunday in The Washington Post.

And last night at the web site of Newsweek, Michael Isikoff and Daniel Klaidman had a blog post titled “Justice Official Clears Bush Lawyers in Torture Memo Probe.”

“Panel Nerds: Ruth Bader Ginsburg Is Human.” Yesterday, the Mediaite web site posted an essay that begins, “The walls of Kaufmann Concert Hall at the 92nd Street Y are adorned with the names of some of history’s greatest thinkers: Jefferson, Shakespeare, Maimonides. When Ruth Bader Ginsburg joined them on stage, she fit right in.” (Via WSJ.com’s “Law Blog.”)

“Court: Conduct board must turn over Conahan complaint.” Today’s edition of The Citizens’ Voice of Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania contains an article that begins, “The state Judicial Conduct Board must provide a state panel investigating the Luzerne County kids-for-cash corruption scandal with a confidential misconduct complaint against former Judge Michael T. Conahan, the state Supreme Court ruled Friday.”

The syllabus that the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania issued with its ruling yesterday states, “Mr. Chief Justice Castille delivered the Opinion of the Court, in which Messrs. Justice Saylor, Eakin and Baer, Madame Justice Todd, and Mr. Justice McCaffery joined with respect to Sections I and II; and in which Messrs. Justice Eakin, Baer and McCaffery joined with respect to Sections III-A and III-B; and an Opinion, in which Messrs. Justice Eakin and McCaffery joined, with respect to Sections III-C and IV. Mr. Justice Baer filed a Concurring and Dissenting Opinion. Madame Justice Todd filed a Concurring and Dissenting Opinion, in which Mr. Justice Saylor joined. Madame Justice Orie Melvin filed a Concurring and Dissenting Opinion.”

“Obama v. Alito: Political dust-up during State of the Union; Supreme Court Associate Justice Samuel Alito apparently took umbrage at President Obama’s comment about the court’s recent decision on corporate campaign contributions; Was either of them out of line?” The Christian Science Monitor has this report.

Mark Sherman of The Associated Press reports that “Critics raise specter of foreign campaign spending.”

Tony Mauro of The National Law Journal reports that “Reformers Hope High Court Decision Will Kill Judicial Elections; The ‘Citizens United’ opinion, they reason, may drive more money into judicial races and turn off the public.”

Today in The New York Times, Dorothy Samuels has an “Editorial Notebook” essay entitled “Hanging a ‘For Sale’ Sign Over the Judiciary.”

And in Sunday’s edition of The Washington Post, Martha C. White will have an essay entitled “Idea of company-as-person originated in late 19th century.”

Majority on divided three-judge Fifth Circuit panel holds that notice of appeal specifying that the plaintiff was appealing from the dismissal of a claim against only two of the five individual defendants sufficed to appeal against all five: You can access Thursday’s ruling, which the court posted online yesterday, at this link. Because the court affirmed the dismissal, the dispute over whether the notice of appeal should be construed more broadly than its plain text will not have any lasting consequence in this case.

Nevertheless, this ruling demonstrates two important things. First, no step in the appellate process is so easy that it cannot be fouled-up due to inadequate attention. And, second, the ruling demonstrates that deciding what to appeal, and ensuring that the notice of appeal will effectuate that decision, are among the most critical steps in the appellate process.

Update: The August 20, 2007 installment of my “On Appeal” column for law.com was headlined “You Call That a Notice of Appeal?”

By the way, Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 3(c)(1) — titled “Contents of the Notice of Appeal” — does not require that a notice of appeal specify the party or parties against whom an appeal is being taken, although designating the party or parties against whom an appeal is being taken is certainly one way of specifying that only a part of a judgment or order is being appealed. See Fed. R. App. P. 3(c)(1)(B).

“Trials in child’s death delayed until final ruling on gag order”: This article appears today in The Toledo Blade.

“The public face of gun-rights battle: Southwest Side resident is part of next month’s Supreme Court test of Chicago’s gun ban.” Sunday’s edition of The Chicago Tribune will contain a lengthy article that begins, “From behind the wheel of his hulking GMC Suburban, 76-year-old Otis McDonald leads a crime-themed tour of his Morgan Park neighborhood.”

And at “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “New pleas for gun rights; Final McDonald briefs filed.”