“Scalia advocates judicial restraint in Friday evening address; Presented with James Madison Award for Distinguished Public Service”: The Daily Princetonian provides a news update that begins, “Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonin Scalia defended the Court’s role in the 2000 presidential recount in Florida and expressed his views about the Court’s role in a liberal democracy before an audience in a packed McCosh 50 on Friday night.”

The Associated Press reports that “Scalia, in Princeton speech, defends 2000 election decision.”

And News at Princeton today has a report headlined “Scalia: Courts’ powers are limited.”

“D.C. Gun Case Draws Crowd of High Court ‘Friends'”: Robert Barnes will have this article Sunday in The Washington Post.

“Bush Vetoes Bill that Bars Waterboarding”: This audio segment (RealPlayer required) appeared on this evening’s broadcast of NPR’s “All Things Considered.”

“Obama’s Constitution: The rhetoric and the reality.” In the March 17, 2008 issue of The Weekly Standard, Edward Whelan will have an essay that begins, “Justice John Paul Stevens turns 88 in April, and by January 2009 five other justices will be from 69 to 75 years old. If Barack Obama is elected president, he will probably–with the benefit of resignations by liberal justices eager for him to be the president who chooses their successors–have the opportunity to appoint two or three Supreme Court justices in his first term, with another two or three in a potential second term.”

“Pacifist Cal State teacher gets job back”: The San Francisco Chronicle today contains an article that begins, “A Cal State East Bay math teacher and practicing Quaker who was fired for refusing to sign a state-required loyalty oath got her job back this week, with an apology from the university and a clarification that the oath does not require employees to take up arms in violation of their religious beliefs.”

And The Los Angeles Times reports today that “Instructor fired over loyalty oath reinstated; Cal State East Bay teacher refused to sign on religious grounds.”

“Civil unions aren’t marriage: The M-word does matter, and courts should make that clear.” The Los Angeles Times contains this editorial today.

“Supreme Recusal: When high court justices step aside from cases, there is no easy remedy for the consequences.” This editorial appears today in The Washington Post.

Relatedly, the current installment of my “On Appeal” column for law.com is headlined “Avoiding Recusal-Based Tie Votes at the U.S. Supreme Court.”

“Bush Announces Veto of Waterboarding Ban”: Dan Eggen of The Washington Post provides this news update. And in the print edition of today’s newspaper, Eggen has an article headlined “Bush Poised to Veto Waterboarding Ban; Move Could Reverberate in Campaign.”

Sunday’s edition of The New York Times will report that “Bush Uses Veto on C.I.A. Tactics to Affirm Legacy.” The Week in Review section, meanwhile, will contain an article headlined “The Unstudied Art of Interrogation.”

And today’s broadcast of NPR’s “Weekend Edition Saturday” contained an audio segment entitled “Torture Debate at Heart of Bush FISA Veto” (RealPlayer required).

“Ex-FDA official blasts Eli Lilly in court; Expert witness for the state says profits came first”: The Anchorage Daily News today contains an article that begins, “A retired medical officer with the federal Food and Drug Administration testified Friday that drug maker Eli Lilly distorted the science and downplayed the health risks of its schizophrenia drug Zyprexa to make more money. John Gueriguian, who worked 20 years for the FDA and is now a consultant, was on the stand in Anchorage Superior Court all day Friday as an expert witness for the state of Alaska.”

And The New York Times reports today that “Lilly Waited Too Long to Warn About Schizophrenia Drug, Doctor Testifies.”

“Anti-Musharraf Lawyers Demand Release of Judges”: Sunday’s edition of The New York Times will contain an article that begins, “Beside racks of hanging meat and barrows of oranges in the alleys of the old town here, Aitzaz Ahsan, leader of the lawyers movement in Pakistan, was back on the campaign trail on Saturday, calling for the release of top justices from house arrest.”

“Some Asbestos Grace”: The Wall Street Journal today contains an editorial that begins, “The asbestos lawsuit blob has grown so large that many companies have simply given up fighting it. Then there’s W.R. Grace, which is on the verge of making legal history with a trial proceeding that could alter the federal asbestos bankruptcy landscape forever.”

“Should We Pay Federal Circuit Judges More?” On January 4, 2008, Law Professor Scott Baker had a controversial op-ed in The Los Angeles Times headlined “A raise that’s hard to justify: Federal judges exhibit no link between performance and pay.”

The op-ed drew on Baker’s then-forthcoming article in the February 2008 issue of the Boston University Law Review, headlined “Should We Pay Federal Circuit Judges More?” The final version of that law review article can now be accessed online at this link (via “Concurring Opinions“).

I discussed Baker’s op-ed in the January 23, 2008 installment of my “On Appeal” column for law.com, headlined “Performance Pay for Federal Appellate Judges?”

Available online from law.com: Pamela A. MacLean reports that “9th Circuit Settles Fee Fight Between Two Firms; Dispute stems from 900 Phoenix-area residents’ lawsuit against Motorola for environmental pollution.” You can access Thursday’s ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit at this link.

In other news, “‘Human Dummy’ Crash-Test Data Held Admissible in Accident Case.” You can access Thursday’s ruling of the Supreme Court of New Jersey at this link.

And an article headlined “House Prepares for Contempt Challenge” begins, “The House is planning to file a lawsuit early [next] week challenging the Bush administration’s assertion of executive privilege to shield current and former White House officials from congressional subpoenas.”

“Havana Dreams Deferred: Four Vermonters sue the U.S. government for the right to see their families in Cuba.” This week’s issue of Seven Days contains an article that begins, “Some might say it takes major cojones to file a lawsuit against the United States government on behalf of yourself and several million Cuban-Americans over an entrenched, half-century-old foreign policy — especially if you’re neither Cuban-American nor a bona fide lawyer. But for Jared Carter, a second-year student at Vermont Law School in South Royalton, all it took was love.”