“Advice of Consul: In two major treaty rulings, the Roberts court has drawn the line at the border.” David G. Savage has this article in the June 2008 issue of ABA Journal magazine.

“The Volokh Conspiracy” should be back online soon: It’s proving to be a difficult weekend for certain law-related blogs, as “How Appealing” was inaccessible for a bit early in the weekend when this site moved to new web servers. And now “The Volokh Conspiracy” is off-line. Details on when “The Volokh Conspiracy” may be back online can be accessed in this post at “InstaPundit.”

“Pinning the blame for 9/11: A Phila. law firm wages an epic legal battle to win billions from Saudi Arabia.” The Philadelphia Inquirer today contains this front page article — part one of a two-part series.

“Court gets behind spanking, to a degree; In the case of a boy paddled 36 times, the state Supreme Court says the practice is legal unless punishment is excessive or cruel”: This article appeared yesterday in The Minneapolis Star Tribune.

And The St. Paul Pioneer Press reported yesterday that “Court lets spanking parents off hook; Ruling doesn’t OK punishment but cites case’s lack of evidence.”

You can access Friday’s ruling of the Supreme Court of Minnesota at this link.

“Release of footage showing Khadr interrogation sought; Video documentation of Canadian agents’ questioning has been kept secret for five years”: Yesterday’s edition of The Toronto Globe and Mail contained an article that begins, “Canadian intelligence agents were videotaped as they questioned a 16-year-old prisoner held in Guantanamo Bay, and a court battle is brewing to force disclosure of the footage. A videotaped interrogation of Omar Khadr over three days, conducted seven months after he was shot and captured in Afghanistan, has been kept secret for five years. Yet efforts are under way to force government officials to release four DVDs containing the recordings that may yield insights into the secrets of the U.S. prison camp and one of Canada’s more ethically fraught investigations.”

And The Toronto Star reported yesterday that “Judge’s exit sparks fresh outcry; Ouster midway through Khadr’s Guantanamo legal battle fuels push for his return to Canada.”

“Picking Judges”: Syndicated columnist Linda Chavez has an essay that begins, “If you ask Americans what issues matter most to them in choosing a president, the candidate’s judicial philosophy is not likely to make it into the top 10. But a president’s power to nominate judges is, in fact, one of his most powerful tools — and often leaves a legacy that lasts far longer than any policy initiative.”

Would you like Fries with that? The Associated Press provides a report headlined “Ore. Supreme Court rules moving marijuana illegal” that begins, “Helping a friend move a few plants to his new house can get you into trouble with the police, if they happen to be marijuana plants. The Oregon Supreme Court ruled Friday that a man who helped his friend move things could be convicted on marijuana possession charges.”

You can access Friday’s ruling of the Supreme Court of Oregon in State v. Fries at this link.

Don’t microwave the cat: Yesterday’s edition of The Vancouver Sun contained an article headlined “B.C. man guilty of cruelty for microwaving cat; John Ronald Hughes killed girlfriend’s cat after it was injured by wobbly couch.”

You can access Friday’s ruling of the Supreme Court of British Columbia at this link.

“Supreme Court highly rated in study”: The Arkansas Democrat-Gazette yesterday contained an article that begins, “The Arkansas Supreme Court was rated highly in a study made public this month in a University of Chicago Law School working paper series based on opinions written by members of state high courts in 1998-2000.”

I previously mentioned this study in a post you can access here.

“Top court beckons, who will be called? Speculation intense as spot opens on Supreme Court for judge from Atlantic region.” Yesterday’s edition of The Toronto Star contained an article that begins, “The job comes with eager young assistants, smart colleagues, a chauffeur-driven car, a private dining room, wood-panelled office, guards at the front door, an annual salary of $309,300 and a view of the Ottawa River. But a seat on the Supreme Court of Canada — with the long hours, social isolation and political and public scrutiny that come with it — isn’t everybody’s idea of a dream job.”

“Major League Baseball goes to the Supreme Court; The justices are to consider taking up a case involving whether Internet fantasy baseball games have a free-speech right to use the names and statistics of famous athletes”: David G. Savage has this article today in The Los Angeles Times.