Tomorrow marks the 10th anniversary of the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City: The Oklahoman has this web page devoted to the anniversary. And links to that newspaper’s recent news coverage can be accessed via this link.
Today in The New York Times, John Kifner has an article headlined “In Oklahoma, a Week of Remembrance.”
The Knight Ridder Newspapers report that “Domestic terrorism still a threat.”
Tuesday’s edition of Financial Times contains an article headlined “Terror threat from within keeps America on high alert.”
Newsday on Tuesday will contain an article headlined “The new face of militance: After 9/11, domestic anti-government and racist groups find the means to reorganize.”
Tuesday’s edition of The Kansas City Star will report that “Nichols hints at more detail.”
The Fort Worth Star-Telegram on Tuesday will contain an article headlined “Youngest survivor carrying on with hope despite limitations.”
The Chicago Tribune on Tuesday will report that “10 years later, family mourns loss of unborn baby.”
The Dallas Morning News offers articles headlined “They never forget; Fence continues to attract remembrances of bombing“; “Smallest survivors share scars“; and “City’s survivors beaten, but not broken.”
FOXNews.com reports that “Bomb Material Still Goes Largely Unchecked.”
And The Arizona Republic on Tuesday will contain an editorial entitled “An echo of hate: 10 years after, Oklahoma City remains a call for vigilance.”
Available online from The Washington Post: Tuesday’s newspaper will contain a front page article headlined “Moussaoui Planning To Admit 9/11 Role; Judge Will Weigh Mental Capacity.” Charles Lane will report that “Supreme Court to Decide Whether Church Can Import Drug.” And in other news, “Domestic Extremist Groups Weaker but Still Worrisome; Militias Waned After ’95 Bombing.”
Today’s newspaper, meanwhile, contains an article headlined “Father First, Senator Second; For Rick Santorum, Politics Could Hardly Get More Personal.”
Available online from The New York Times: In Tuesday’s newspaper, Linda Greenhouse will have an article headlined “Supreme Court to Hear Case of Dispute Over Religious Group’s Use of Banned Drug.” And in other news, “Pharmacies Balk on After-Sex Pill and Widen Fight in Many States.”
Today’s newspaper, meanwhile, contains an article headlined “When the Blogger Blogs, Can the Employer Intervene?”
In Tuesday’s edition of The Christian Science Monitor: Warren Richey will have an article headlined “Supreme Court will revisit issue of free exercise of religion.”
And an editorial will be entitled “Overreaching on Judges.”
“Republicans Rally to End Judicial Filibuster”: This segment (transcript with link to audio) appeared on tonight’s broadcast of the PBS program “The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer.”
The Advisory Committee on Rules of Appellate Procedure once again approves proposed Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 32.1, which would allow citation to non-precedential rulings in all U.S. Courts of Appeals: The vote at today’s Appellate Rules advisory committee meeting was 7-2 in favor of the proposed new rule. Of course, the same result, with the exact same margin of support, was achieved just over one year ago, as I reported here on April 14, 2004.
Last June, however, the Standing Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure unanimously agreed to postpone action on the rule to give the Federal Judicial Center time to research some of the concerns raised by the rule’s opponents. The details of what was to have occurred in the interim can be accessed in this post. The results of the additional research do not appear to have changed anyone’s mind about the wisdom of the proposed rule, which still has the Appellate Rules committee’s overwhelming support.
“When Blogs Bite Back”: That’s the title of today’s installment of Howard Kurtz’s “Media Notes” column.
Even as amended, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit‘s ruling in Juicy Whip v. Orange Bang isn’t as salacious as the case’s name suggests: You can access today’s amended conclusion to that ruling at this link.
“OKC 10 Years Later”: CBS News legal analyst Andrew Cohen has this essay today.
An additional four Second Circuit judges explain why they voted against rehearing en banc in the Vermont campaign finance case: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit today issued a further amended set of concurring and dissenting opinions. In a passage that begins on page 39 of the PDF file, today’s opinion concurring in the denial of rehearing en banc states:
We think that some disputes, because of their highly partisan and political caste, should be addressed by the federal judiciary only when and insofar as is necessary. And we think that this is such a dispute. The resolution of this sort of campaign financing issue is bound to have, or at least to be seen to have, an impact favoring one political side or another depending on the result. We would prefer not to enter into a process that would likely result in a decision of our full Court that would therefore be vulnerable to accusations that it is driven by result rather than by legal analysis. We should avoid it if we can do so responsibly.
Footnote six to the quoted passage, found at the bottom of page 40 of the PDF file, also should not be missed.
“Nominees Brown and Owen Pushed toward Senate Vote despite Records of Putting Political Agenda before Law; Frist may use previously rejected nominees as excuse to deploy ‘nuclear option'”: The organization People For the American Way has issued this press release today and has sent this letter to the chairman and ranking minority member of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
“Before Firing ‘Nukes,’ Senate Should Debate Bush’s Judicial Picks”: Mort Kondracke has this essay today in Roll Call.
Roll Call today also contains an article headlined “Heat on Seven in Judicial Fight” that begins, “With the fate of judicial filibusters hanging in the balance, just seven Senate Republicans remain publicly undecided on changing the rules to eliminate the parliamentary move.” And RJ Matson has this “nuclear option”-related editorial cartoon.
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit rules that criminal defendant tried as an adult for armed robberies committed as a juvenile must receive mandatory minimum sentence of 182 years in federal prison: You can access today’s ruling at this link. The federal district court had sentenced the defendant to a term of imprisonment of 32 years.
Divided three-judge Ninth Circuit panel reinstates Holocaust survivors’ claims against Vatican Bank for damages resulting from lost and looted property: Today’s ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit contains a detailed analysis of the political question doctrine involving foreign relations. The majority opinion begins, “We are faced here with the question whether claims for losses allegedly suffered at the hands of a Nazi puppet regime during World War II are cognizable in our courts today.”
Reuters is reporting: Now available online are articles headlined “Court Permits DC to Block Hazardous Rail Shipments” and “U.S. Lawyers Have Little Stomach for Obesity Cases.”
You can access online today’s hazardous rail shipments ruling of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia at this link.
“Rudolph faces hours of isolation at ‘Alcatraz of the Rockies'”: This article appeared last week in The Atlanta Journal-Constitution.
“Judiciary — The Harm In Waiting”: The blog “Captains Quarters” offers this post, which even features the proverbial secret source whose identity will never be revealed.
“For art’s sake, redress fight goes on; Court victories bolster Holocaust survivor”: This article appeared yesterday in The Chicago Tribune.
In the Spring 2005 issue of Prologue, a publication of the National Archives and Records Administration: Jill Norgren has an article titled “Belva Lockwood: Blazing the Trail for Women in Law.” Among other notable achievements, Ms. Lockwood was the first woman admitted to the bar of the U.S. Supreme Court.
And, just in time for warm weather, Jefferson M. Moak has an article titled “The Frozen Sucker War: Good Humor v. Popsicle.”
“Is Justice O’Connor Chilling Protected Speech to Insulate Judges?” Jan LaRue has this essay today at Human Events Online.
“GOP sheds federalism favored by forefathers; New legislation trumping state authority veers from conservatism’s roots”: This article appears today in The St. Petersburg Times.
“Blackmun Clerks Had Too Much Power, Says Historian”: law.com’s Tony Mauro has this report on an article by Pulitzer Prize-winning historian David J. Garrow that will appear in the May | June 2005 issue of Legal Affairs magazine.
Today’s U.S. Supreme Court Order List: You can access today’s Order List at this link. The Court today granted review in three cases, including the hallucinogenic tea case. The Court also requested the views of the Solicitor General in one case.
In early coverage, Hope Yen of The Associated Press reports that “Supreme Court to Hear Tea Case” and “High Court Considering Police Searches.” The AP also reports that “High Court Won’t Hear Abortion Clinic Case.”
Meanwhile, from Reuters, James Vicini reports that “Supreme Court to Hear Appeal on Hallucinogenic Tea” and “Supreme Court to Decide Police Search Case.”
“Pushing for Polygamy: Multiple marriage isn’t such a distant step away from gay marriage as many pretend.” Megan Basham has this essay today at National Review Online.
“London groping case dogs governor; British libel law seen as benefit to TV host’s suit”: Bob Egelko had this article yesterday in The San Francisco Chronicle.
The Associated Press is reporting: Now available online are articles headlined “GOP Chips Away at Dems’ Filibuster Efforts” and “Analysis: GOP Filibuster Plan Poses Risks.”
In newz from New Zealand: The New Zealand Press Association reports that “Pitcairn sex abuse appeal begins.”
“Rules on innovation come under a legal microscope”: In today’s edition of Financial Times, Patti Waldmeir has an article that begins, “The US Supreme Court could be about to rewrite therules of innovation in America. A patent case this week could profoundly affect not only those who take or make American drugs but also the innovation economy.”
“What a show”: Yesterday in The Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, columnist Paul Greenberg had an op-ed that begins, “So this is what the law has come to.”
“King fights on behalf of display”: Saturday’s edition of The Daily Nonpareil of Council Bluffs, Iowa contained an article that begins, “The Ten Commandments may soon be displayed in the U.S. House of Representatives through the efforts of an Iowa Congressman.”
The New York Times reviews Floyd Abrams’s new book, “Speaking Freely: Trials of the First Amendment,” twice: In Saturday’s newspaper, Law Professor Geoffrey R. Stone had a review headlined “Supreme Court Tales From the Pleading Side of the Bench.”
And yesterday, in the Sunday Book Review, Law Professor Jeffrey Rosen had a review headlined “‘Speaking Freely’: Your Right to Say It.”
“Defendants, don’t try this in court: One judge says acting as your own criminal defense attorney is ‘such a profoundly bad idea’; In this opinion, he isn’t alone.” This article appeared yesterday in The St. Petersburg Times, along with a related article headlined “First an offense, then bad defense; Accused of punching his pregnant girlfriend, Teddy Roberts represents himself in court.”
“Dems’ filibusters cast as attack on ‘people of faith'”: This article appears today in USA Today.
Today in The New York Sun, Luiza Ch. Savage reports that “Schumer Calls a Conservative ‘Un-American.’”
The Boston Globe reports that “Balancing act key for GOP’s Frist.”
The Reno Gazette-Journal reports that “More challenges ahead for soft-spoken Reid.”
The Mobile Register today contains an editorial entitled “Senate ought to end all judicial filibusters.”
The Contra Costa Times contains an editorial entitled “Filibuster blustering.”
The East Valley (Ariz.) Tribune contains an editorial entitled “Frustrations at filibuster shouldn’t goad GOP into Senate war.”
The Charleston (W. Va.) Gazette contains an editorial entitled “Senate mess: Filibuster battle.”
The Troy (N.Y.) Record contains an editorial entitled “Ending filibusters could disrupt power balance.”
The St. Petersburg Times contains an editorial entitled “Frist shows no shame.”
Today in The Los Angeles Times, Law Professor Jonathan Turley has an op-ed entitled “The Not So Dirty Dozen: They’re the undercard to the fight over a high court nomination.”
In The ASU Web Devil, Vic Vela has an op-ed entitled “Frist’s religious usage immoral.”
In The Colorado State Collegian, Ben Bleckley has an op-ed entitled “Filibuster for the Minority.”
And in The Independent Florida Alligator, Matt Sanchez has an op-ed entitled “Time to set a ridiculous rule straight.”
“Lethal injection faces fight from condemned; 2 convicted killers in Kentucky are latest to challenge practice in court”: Richard Willing has this article today in USA Today.
“Limbaugh Spars With ACS Over Conference on Constitution; Accuses Group of Trying To Upend America’s Founding Document”: Josh Gerstein has this article today in The New York Sun.
