“Permissible Assaults Cited in Graphic Detail; Drugging Detainees Is Among Techniques”: Today in The Washington Post, Dan Eggen has an article that begins, “Thirty pages into a memorandum discussing the legal boundaries of military interrogations in 2003, senior Justice Department lawyer John C. Yoo tackled a question not often asked by American policymakers: Could the president, if he desired, have a prisoner’s eyes poked out?”

“Supreme Court to hear appeal in libel case”: The Ottawa Citizen on Thursday contained an article that begins, “The Supreme Court of Canada has agreed to hear an appeal of an Ottawa Citizen libel case that could greatly expand legal protection for journalists who responsibly report stories in the public interest.”

“Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia to visit R.I.” The Associated Press provides a report that begins, “U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia is preparing to visit Rhode Island. Scalia will visit the Roger Williams University law school on Monday, where he’ll host an hourlong question-and-answer session with students and faculty. He’ll also teach a class on constitutional law.”

“Nottingham is being viewed from both sides”: Tuesday’s edition of The Denver Post contained an article that begins, “Since Chief U.S. District Judge Edward W. Nottingham Jr. slammed his gavel down at former Qwest chief executive Joe Nacchio in July and lectured him on morality, the focus has turned to the judge’s own behavior on and off the bench.”

And Wednesday’s edition of The Rocky Mountain News contained an editorial entitled “Judge on the hot seat: Public should learn if Nottingham is punished.”

“Where’s the justice in this department?” Columnist Robyn E. Blumner has this op-ed today in The St. Petersburg Times.

“Drug Makers Near Old Goal: A Legal Shield.” The New York Times today contains an article that begins, “For years, Johnson & Johnson obscured evidence that its popular Ortho Evra birth control patch delivered much more estrogen than standard birth control pills, potentially increasing the risk of blood clots and strokes, according to internal company documents. But because the Food and Drug Administration approved the patch, the company is arguing in court that it cannot be sued by women who claim that they were injured by the product — even though its old label inaccurately described the amount of estrogen it released. This legal argument is called pre-emption. After decades of being dismissed by courts, the tactic now appears to be on the verge of success, lawyers for plaintiffs and drug companies say.”

“Deposed, not composed; Under oath, he swore, and swore”: Today’s edition of The Philadelphia Inquirer contains an article that begins, “Maybe a bar of soap would work better. A federal judge in Philadelphia has fined a foul-mouthed CEO and his lawyer $29,323 for making a ‘spectacular failure’ out of a court-related proceeding in what has become a most uncivil civil case. Over 12 hours on two days in the fall, Aaron Wider, a mortgage company owner from Long Island, N.Y., launched the F-bomb or some variation 73 times. Wider’s expletive-spewing rants forced his deposition to a premature end, and shocked U.S. District Court Judge Eduardo Robreno, who later said he had never seen anything like it in his three decades in the legal profession. Now Wider’s testimony has become an Internet hit with financial and legal bloggers who have dubbed it ‘The Deposition From Heck.'”

The article provides access to video from the deposition.

“Evidence the Pa. death penalty is punishment existing in name only”: Columnist Michael Smerconish has this op-ed today in The Philadelphia Inquirer.

“High court victory may give bench new bent; Balance shift likely with conservative’s 10-year term”: This article appears today in The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. In addition, columnist Eugene Kane has an op-ed entitled “Butler lost court race but not his integrity,” while columnist Patrick McIlheran has an op-ed entitled “Next time, vote as you’re told.”

And The Wisconsin State Journal today contains an article headlined “High court races as barroom brawls.”

“Police not required to show search warrant right away”: Today in The Providence (R.I.) Journal, Edward Fitzpatrick has an article that begins, “On television, when the police are going to search a house, they immediately show a search warrant to the homeowner. But when the state police raided the Narragansett Indian smoke shop, a trooper kept the warrant in his back pocket and did not display a copy for somewhere from 10 to 30 minutes into the raid — after tribe members had been arrested and after Chief Sachem Matthew Thomas had repeatedly asked for a warrant.”

“A Supreme Court in thrall to casinos”: This editorial appears today in The Philadelphia Inquirer.

“Cobb hews close to Supreme Court majority”: Today’s edition of The Mobile Press-Register contains an article that begins, “Since breaking onto the all-Republican Alabama Supreme Court in 2007, Democratic Chief Justice Sue Bell Cobb has sided with her GOP brethren more than 90 percent of the time. But that has done little to mollify some of her fiercest critics.”

“Wyo: Toss Montana’s lawsuit.” The Associated Press provides a report that begins, “Wyoming’s attorney general asked the U.S. Supreme Court on Friday to dismiss a lawsuit alleging the state’s agriculture and energy industries are using too much water in violation of an interstate agreement.”