“Battle over judicial nominees likely to be ideological war”: This news analysis will appear Sunday in The Philadelphia Inquirer.
Sunday’s issue of The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel will report that “Battle on judges may get nasty; Kohl, Feingold defend Democrats’ right to filibuster some nominees.”
And in Sunday’s edition of The Washington Post, Law Professor Jeffrey Rosen will have a quite interesting essay entitled “It’s The Law, Not the Judge; But These Days the Bench Is the Hot Seat.”
Virginia Pledge of Allegiance case argued before first three-judge panel to consist entirely of female Fourth Circuit judges: Earlier today, I linked here to the appellate briefs and district court opinion in this case.
This evening, while my wife and I were out watching a local production of the play “Blue/Orange,” a reader emailed to advise that the Fourth Circuit panel assigned to decide this appeal consists of Circuit Judges Karen J. Williams, Diana Gribbon Motz, and Allyson K. Duncan. A question-and-answer session with law students followed the oral arguments held at Wake Forest University School of Law in Winston-Salem, North Carolina. According to my correspondent, “In answer to one question, the Judges stated that this was the first all-woman panel composed of 3 Fourth Circuit judges. There had been a previous all-woman panel composed of 2 Fourth Circuit judges and 1 district court judge.”
“Florida high court refuses Schiavo petition; Schindlers’ lawyer says legal fight is near end”: CNN.com provides this report. And The Associated Press reports that “Legal Fight Over Schiavo Nearing an End.”
This evening’s order of the Supreme Court of Florida can be accessed at this link.
“Schiavo Judge Attains New Fame, Infamy”: The AP offers this report.
“Attorneys: Schiavo Legal Battle Nears End.” The Associated Press provides this report.
On this date in “How Appealing” history: Now that this blog has been in existence for literally forever and a day, it is possible to reach back into the archives to point out potentially interesting or amusing posts that first appeared online here on this very date one or more years ago.
For example, on March 26, 2004, I had a post titled “Apparently no ‘Larry’ or ‘Curly’ defendants were sued” that began, “If Unocal Corp. can be sued in California for alleged abuses committed in Myanmar, then why can’t ChevronTexaco Corp. be sued in California for alleged abuses committed in Nigeria?”
And two years ago today, I was not only linking to Dahlia Lithwick’s coverage of that day’s oral argument in Lawrence v. Texas, but I was also attempting to explain the U.S. Supreme Court‘s ruling handed down that day which once and for all brought an end to Fifth Amendment takings clause challenges against IOLTA programs.
“Appellate trivia (Map v. Idaho and Montana):” That was the title of this post of mine from March 2003. Now, via Orin Kerr at “The Volokh Conspiracy,” I see that some enterprising law professor has been able to spin the subject into a law review article that’s being published in a forthcoming issue of The Georgetown Law Journal.
“Pledge of Allegiance Debate Heard; Lawyers argue over whether Loudoun students should be reciting the Pledge in school”: This article, which appeared Thursday in The Loudoun (Va.) Connection, discusses a case argued two Fridays ago in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
A reader has kindly forwarded electronic copies of the briefs filed in the Fourth Circuit. I have posted online the Brief for Appellant filed by a parent challenging the daily recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance as an Establishment Clause violation; the Briefs for Appellees filed by the school board and the Commonwealth of Virginia; the brief filed by the federal government as intervenor; the amicus brief filed by the State of Alabama on behalf of 30 States; and the parent’s reply brief. The decision that is the subject of this appeal originates from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. Some of these uploaded files are very large documents, so be forewarned.
“U.S. Drafts Plan to Strengthen Detainee Rights”: Sunday’s edition of The New York Times will contain an article that begins, “Battered by criticism from the federal court, foreign governments and human rights groups, the Defense Department is considering substantial changes to the special military tribunals that the Bush administration established to try foreign terrorism suspects at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.”
“Aguirre: Vote about cross OK; Measure could reverse City Council’s decision.” Thursday’s edition of The San Diego Union-Tribune contained an article that begins, “City Attorney Michael Aguirre said yesterday that voters should be able to pursue a referendum to reverse the City Council’s decision that cleared the way for the Mount Soledad cross to be moved off public land.”
BREAKING NEWS — Florida state trial court judge denies Terri Schiavo’s parents’ latest request to reconnect feeding tube: So CNN is reporting.
And The Associated Press reports that “Fla. Judge Nixes Schiavo Parents’ Request.”
Update: A copy of the ruling can be viewed at this link.
“Good Judgment”: The Washington Post today contains an editorial that begins, “Neither Congress nor President Bush acquitted themselves well last weekend in enacting a law to intervene in the case of Terri Schiavo. But in the days that have followed, one institution of American government has distinguished itself in its handling of the matter: the federal courts.”
“Schiavo Parents Won’t Fight Federal Ruling”: The Associated Press reports here that “Terri Schiavo’s parents will not ask a federal appeals court to reconsider its decision that left their brain-damaged daughter without her feeding tube, leaving one of their last hopes with a state judge who has ruled against them before, one of their lawyers said Saturday.”
And CNN.com offers a report headlined “Attorney: No more federal appeals in Schiavo case; State judge to announce ruling by noon.”
Available online from c|net News.Com: An article reports that “Broadband scuffle reaches Supreme Court.”
And an article about Google News is headlined “All the news that robots pick.”
“Salazar retreats from no-filibuster position”: This article appears today in The Washington Times.
And in The Oregonian today, columnist Robert Landauer has an essay entitled “‘Nuke’ option fallout has deadly effect.”
“Screenwriter snubbed by appeals court in S.F.; Ruling says she doesn’t own copyright”: Bob Egelko has this article today in The San Francisco Chronicle.
“Schiavo: Same judges, same result; Judges who have already denied requests to reinstate Terri Schiavo’s feeding tube issue the same rulings.” This article appears today in The St. Petersburg Times, along with an article headlined “She’s the other woman in Michael Schiavo’s heart.”
The Tampa Tribune reports that “Schiavo In ‘Last Hours,’ Exhausted Father Says.”
The Orlando Sentinel reports that “Schiavo protesters aim ire at Gov. Bush; Her parents keep fighting in court as their backers compare the governor to Pontius Pilate.”
The Miami Herald contains articles headlined “Protesters on vigil near Schiavo sensing long struggle may be over; A sense of inevitability set in at Terri Schiavo’s hospice despite a provocative new claim by her parents that she tried to speak” and “Police ‘showdown’ averted.”
The Washington Post contains articles headlined “Schiavo’s Parents Take ‘Final Shot’ to Keep Her Alive” and “Schiavo Case Tests Priorities Of GOP.”
The Los Angeles Times reports that “Court Denies Parents’ Appeal; The Schindlers urge Gov. Bush to save their daughter as protesters at his mansion demand he send state agents to take custody of Terri Schiavo.”
The Boston Globe reports that “Schiavo’s parents keep up appeals; But daughter is facing final hours, Schindlers say.”
The San Francisco Chronicle reports that “Schiavo shied away from the spotlight; An ‘ironic’ public role for a private person.”
And The Chicago Tribune reports that “Suspect tried to steal gun to rescue Schiavo, cops say.”
