“Va. Man Nears Execution in Test of Destroyed DNA”: This lengthy front page article will appear Monday in The Washington Post.

Available online from The American Prospect: Law Professor Cass Sunstein has an essay entitled “The Problem with Predictability: Many conservatives expect a Supreme Court justice whose opinions they can predict; Predictability may be a virtue in a political leader; For judges, it’s a vice.”

And Matthew Yglesias has an essay entitled “Originalist Sin: Judges like Clarence Thomas ‘only’ want to return to what they say is the original Constitution; That’s much more radical than they want you to think.”

Available from National Review Online: Edward Whelan has an essay entitled “Judicial Jeopardy: ‘Justice Gonzales’ supporters fail to make the case.”

Andrew C. McCarthy has an essay entitled “Gonzales & the War: The president’s Supreme Court choices are a matter of national security.”

And Denis Boyles has an essay entitled “We’re All in Kansas Now, Toto; Everyone into the cellar: Judicial activism’s twister touches down in Topeka.”

“For Time Reporter, Decision to Testify Came After Frenzied Last-Minute Calls”: Adam Liptak will have this article Monday in The New York Times.

“Reporters aren’t above the law: The courts have spoken in the Plame case; Why does the New York Times think it doesn’t have to listen?” Michael Kinsley has this op-ed today in The Los Angeles Times.

Available online from The Weekly Standard: The July 18, 2005 issue will contain an editorial entitled “Judgment Day: What President Bush needs to keep in mind with the Supreme Court” and an essay by Jeffrey Bell and Frank Cannon entitled “The Bush Supreme Court: The president will be judged by the justices he picks.”

In addition, Law Professor David M. Wagner has an essay entitled “Toss Away the Left’s Schedule Sheet: Why the president should wait to announce his Supreme Court nominee(s).”

“Smoke shop suit will be reheard; The full, six-member appeals court will address certain aspects of the case involving the state police raid on the Narragansett Indian establishment in 2003”: This article appears today in The Providence Journal. You can access Friday’s order of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit granting rehearing en banc at this link.

The earlier ruling in this case by a unanimous three-judge panel — consisting of two First Circuit judges and a district court judge sitting by designation — can be accessed here.

“Proposal would restrict talk on court cases; ‘This would be a blanket gag order,’ says executive director of The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press”: The Providence Journal today contains an article that begins, “A proposal by the federal court in Providence would prevent parties to court cases, their lawyers and court employees from disclosing any information about any pending case unless that information is ‘part of the public record’ or a judge says it’s OK.”

You can access the proposed Amended Local Rules of the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island at this link.

“Liberals Ready for Biggest Battle Yet; High Court Defeat Would Be Devastating, Coalition Leaders Say”: This front page article will appear Monday in The Washington Post, along with an article headlined “Schumer: Democrats ‘Will Not Roll Over’; White House Still Consulting Senators.”

The New York Times on Monday will contain articles headlined “Specter Offers a Suggestion for Chief Justice: O’Connor” and “Ruling on Property Seizure Rallies Christian Groups.”

And Monday in The Chicago Tribune, Jan Crawford Greenburg will have an article headlined “Rehnquist Court not easily defined by labels.”

“Their Will Be Done: How the Supreme Court sows moral anarchy.” OpinionJournal today provides access to this recent Wall Street Journal op-ed by Robert H. Bork.

And on Friday, The Los Angeles Times published an op-ed by Jonathan Chait entitled “Borking Bork Worked Out OK; It turns out he was a right-wing nut.”

“Georgetown Univ. Law Center Panel on Justice O’Connor Legacy”: Via C-SPAN, you can access online by clicking here (RealPlayer required) the video of this event, which occurred this past Thursday in Washington, DC.

And now that people are no longer asking “who is Marty Lederman,” by watching this video beginning at 57 minutes and 20 seconds into the broadcast you can obtain the answer to the question “what does Marty Lederman look like?”

“Seeking a New Supreme Court Justice”: This segment (RealPlayer required) appeared on today’s broadcast of NPR‘s “Weekend Edition – Sunday.”

“Is Rehnquist Next?” CBS News provides this report.

“Supreme Court appointee will shape America long after Bush is gone”: This article appears in Monday’s issue of The Australian.

“Ideology Main Concern in Replacing O’Connor”: FOXNews.com provides this report.

The Associated Press is reporting: Jesse J. Holland has a report headlined “Will Senate Face Multiple Court Debates?”

And in related news, “Bush’s Judges Already Making Their Mark.”

“Lawmaker prods court, raises brows; Demands longer term in Chicago drug case”: The Chicago Tribune today contains an article that begins:

In an extraordinary move, the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee privately demanded last month that the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago change its decision in a narcotics case because he didn’t believe a drug courier got a harsh enough prison term.

Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.), in a five-page letter dated June 23 to Chief Judge Joel Flaum, asserted that a June 16 decision by a three-judge appeals court panel was wrong.

He demanded “a prompt response” as to what steps Flaum would take “to rectify the panel’s actions” in a case where a drug courier in a Chicago police corruption case received a 97-month prison sentence instead of the at least 120 months required by a drug-conspiracy statute.

You can access the four-page, unanimous ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit at this link, and an order amending opinion is available here. Circuit Judge Frank H. Easterbrook wrote the opinion. The blog “Sentencing Law and Policy” discusses the matter further here.

“How a new justice could change the court; If O’Connor’s successor disagrees with any of her positions, precedents decided by a 5-to-4 majority could be vulnerable”: Warren Richey will have this article Monday in The Christian Science Monitor.

Philadelphia Phillies 5, Washington Nationals 4 (12 innings): My son and I spent the afternoon at Citizens Bank Park, where the hometown Phillies in extra innings beat the National League East leading Nationals (wraps and box score available here). The Phillie Phanatic had to leave the game early to depart for Detroit, where he will be joining three Phillies players at the All Star Game.

“Polarized Panel Awaits High Court Nominee”: This front page article appears today in The Washington Post, which also contains an article headlined “O’Connor’s Exit Energizes Va. Abortion Debate.”

The Los Angeles Times today contains a news analysis headlined “Bush Caught in GOP Riptide Over High Court; Choosing a nominee, or two, who will satisfy competing interests may prove to be a struggle” and an article headlined “Ready, Set Legal Activists Await Bush’s Go; Groups on the right and the left are researching every name rumored as a high court nominee, eager to storm the 24-hour news cycle.”

The Boston Globe contains articles headlined “Abortion rulings difficult to gauge; Cases don’t turn on right to privacy” and “Should justices be elected?”

Newsday contains an article headlined “Talks on filling O’Connor seat; Meeting this week between president and Senate leaders comes amid rumors that Rehnquist will retire.”

The Sacramento Bee reports that “O’Connor’s moral compass rooted in West; With justice’s retirement, the Supreme Court loses a unique regional perspective.”

The July 18, 2005 issue of Newsweek magazine contains an article headlined “The Supreme Sales Team: As rumors fly about the possibility of more resignations, the White House eyes its right flank.”

The Kansas City Star reports that “Executive powers a stealth issue in debate over high court nominee.”

The Hearst Newspapers report that “‘Rehnquist revolution’ winds down; States’ rights lost some ground during justices’ most recent term.”

The Philadelphia Inquirer reports that “Specter to star in high-wire act for court debate.”

The Advocate of Baton Rouge, Louisiana reports that “Landrieu key in Justice selection.”

And The Brownsville Herald reports that “O’Connor’s resignation prompts hope for Hispanic justice.”

In commentary, The Boston Globe contains an editorial entitled “Privacy at stake,” while columnist Ellen Goodman has an op-ed entitled “‘Mother’ of all justices.”

The Washington Times contains an editorial entitled “Republicans and the Supremes.”

In The Washington Post, columnist George F. Will has an op-ed entitled “The Case For Justice Wilkinson,” while Law Professor Cass R. Sunstein has an op-ed entitled “Role Reversal and the High Court.”

In The Houston Chronicle, columnist Cragg Hines has an op-ed entitled “Is Gonzales prospect real or a feint as Bush decides?” And Lou Cannon has an op-ed entitled “Nominations the Reagan way: Use politics, not ideology to choose nominees.”

In The Salt Lake Tribune, Pat Shea has an op-ed entitled “The confirmation process: Do we row or wade?”

And finally for now, in The Amarillo Globe-News, John Kanelis has an op-ed entitled “Gonzales is ideal choice for court.”