In U.S. Supreme Court nominee-related commentary: Today’s edition of USA Today contains an editorial entitled “Open Roberts’ record to his client: the public; Court nominee’s views remain too opaque for reasoned judgment” and an op-ed by Law Professor Viet D. Dinh entitled “Candor needs privacy; Releasing documents would dry up U.S. lawyers’ independent analysis.”
In The Boston Globe, Jeff Jacoby has an op-ed entitled “When justices refuse to retire.”
In The Fort Worth Star-Telegram, columnist Linda Campbell has an essay entitled “Put away the litmus paper.”
Online at Salon.com, Law Professor David D. Cole has an essay entitled “On Bush’s bench? Supporters argue John Roberts will be committed to judicial restraint; But in his Guantanamo ruling, he gave Bush virtually unlimited powers in the war on terror; This is restraint?” And Michael Scherer has an essay entitled “The left’s damp powder: The battle over Bush’s Supreme Court nominee was supposed to be epic — so why hasn’t it even started yet?”
Today in The San Francisco Chronicle, Steven Winn has an essay entitled “The Supreme Court demands supreme theater; So where’s the drama in Roberts’ nomination?”
In The Washington Times, Thomas Sowell has an op-ed entitled “Geared for a fight … over ‘views.’”
In The Los Angeles Times, Crispin Sartwell has an essay entitled “I married a feminist.”
From Bloomberg News, Margaret Carlson has an essay entitled “John Roberts and Good Catholic, Bad Catholic,” while Law Professor Goodwin Liu has an essay entitled “Roberts Would Swing the Supreme Court to the Right.”
In The New York Daily News, Stanley Crouch has an essay entitled “Memo to GOP: Roberts could disappoint,” while Sidney Zion has an essay entitled “Bush vs. Gore is the litmus test.”
In The Philadelphia Daily News, Rotan E. Lee has an op-ed entitled “Stacking the Supreme Court deck.”
In The Cincinnati Enquirer, Nicholas P. Wise has an op-ed entitled “Give DeWine credit for brilliant deal.”
In The Clarion-Ledger, Lynn Evans has an essay entitled “O’Connor has large shoes for Roberts to fill.”
At National Review Online, Abigail and Stephan Thernstrom have an essay entitled “Talk about Affirmative Action: John Roberts could make a big difference on the Court.”
And finally for now, Ann Coulter has an essay entitled “Fool me 8 times, shame on me.”
“Democrats Hope to Use Starr Ruling to Gain Roberts’ Memos”: David G. Savage will have this article Friday in The Los Angeles Times. And tomorrow’s newspaper will also report that “Democrats Limit Scope of Roberts Document Requests.”
Available online from law.com: An article reports that “Liberal Lobbyists on Sidelines of Roberts Nomination.”
And in other news, “Calif. Justices Reopen Dog-Maul Case.”
“Judge’s Reagan-Era Work Criticized; Papers Show Roberts’s Conservatism, Liberal Activists Say”: This article will appear Friday in The Washington Post. Tomorrow’s newspaper will also contain an article headlined “What the Federalist Society Stands For; Group Is Haven for Conservative Thought.”
“Court Reinstates Hatfill Suit Vs. Times”: The Associated Press provides this report.
And Reuters reports that “US appeals court reinstates anthrax libel lawsuit.”
My earlier coverage is here.
“What the Documents Say About John Roberts”: This segment (RealPlayer required) featuring David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times and Law Professors Jeffrey Rosen and Michael Gerhardt appeared on today’s broadcast of NPR‘s “Talk of the Nation.”
In Friday’s edition of The Christian Science Monitor: Tomorrow’s newspaper will contain an article headlined “Key turf war: control of nominee’s old papers; The Bush administration cites executive privilege in withholding Roberts’s files, a tactic that is often successful.”
And Roderick Nordell will have an essay entitled “You gotta put down the duckie if you wanna be a justice.”
Might as well just buy it now: The bid on this auction of a Justice Sandra Day O’Connor bobblehead doll is now $300. For the same price, you can “buy it now” from a different eBay seller. [Update: Someone has indeed done just that.]
“What would you ask Judge Roberts?” Seven Democratic female U.S. Senators want to know.
“Roberts tells Democrat he won’t be ‘activist judge'”: Thomas Ferraro of Reuters provides this report.
“Kennedy Questions Roberts on Civil Rights”: The Associated Press provides this report.
“Please Ignore This Case: An Empirical Study of Nonprecedential Opinions in the Federal Circuit.” Beth Zeitlin Shaw has this interesting law review article (via “Appellate Law & Practice“).
“Lockyer approves ballot petitions; Same-sex marriage bans need 600,000 signatures each”: The San Francisco Chronicle today contains an article that begins, “Two ballot measures seeking a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage in California received approval for circulation from Attorney General Bill Lockyer Wednesday.”
Perhaps that’s why Congress called the legislation the Deadbeat Parents Punishment Act instead of the Deadbeat Parents May Collaterally Attack Any State Court Support Order They Don’t Like Act: Today a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued a decision holding that “defendants charged with violating the DPPA cannot collaterally challenge the subject matter jurisdiction of the state court that entered the underlying support order.”
“If high court overturns Roe v. Wade, decision would undermine the GOP”: This past Sunday, Michael Hill had this essay in The Baltimore Sun.
“Procrastinated Geekery”: PG at the blog “De Novo” has some thoughts about The Bluebook‘s 18th Edition’s rules on citation to blogs.
Divided three-judge Fourth Circuit panel reverses the dismissal of claims under Virginia law for defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress brought by Dr. Steven J. Hatfill against The New York Times Company and columnist Nicholas Kristof: You can access today’s ruling, which reverses a Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) dismissal, at this link.
Alliance for Justice files ethics complaint against Congressman F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr. (R-WI): You can view Nan Aron’s letter by clicking here. The letter begins, “As President of Alliance for Justice, I am writing in regard to a June 23, 2005 letter from House of Representatives Judiciary Committee Chairman F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr. to Joel Flaum, the Chief Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, criticizing him for the recent decision by the court in United States v. Rivera while that case was pending.”
“The state Supreme Court says a judge has a responsibility to keep order when lawyers start calling each other names referring to chicken excrement.” So begins an article headlined “Lawyer insults cause reversal; High court pitches case over judge’s failure to stop name-calling” published Tuesday in The Charleston (W.Va.) Daily Mail (via “L-Cubed“).
The majority opinion of the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia can be accessed here, while a concurring opinion is here.
In news from Seattle: The Seattle Times today contains an article headlined “Ressam judge decries U.S. tactics” that begins, “U.S. District Judge John Coughenour sentenced Ahmed Ressam to a 22-year prison term yesterday for attempting to bomb Los Angeles International Airport on the millennium’s eve, and used the occasion to unleash a broadside against secret tribunals and other war on terrorism tactics that abandon ‘the ideals that set our nation apart.'” A related profile of the judge is headlined “Maverick who speaks his mind.” And you can access here a transcript of the judge’s remarks.
The Seattle Post-Intelligencer today contains articles headlined “Ressam receives 22-year sentence; But U.S. judge lashes out at Bush policies on suspects” and “Outspoken judge draws praise, respect; He was appointed to the bench by Reagan in 1981.” And columnist Robert L. Jamieson Jr. has an essay entitled “Justice lost and found in Ressam terror case.”
The New York Times reports that “Terrorist in ’99 U.S. Case Is Sentenced to 22 Years.”
And The Los Angeles Times reports that “Would-Be Millennium Bomber Ressam Gets 22-Year Sentence; A judge settles on a midrange term after the Algerian fails to give authorities more help.”
The wire services are reporting: Jesse J. Holland of The Associated Press reports that “Roberts Assures Dem He Won’t Be Activist.” And The AP’s Gina Holland reports that “Bar Assn. Examines Roberts’ Credentials.”
Reuters, meanwhile, reports that “Republicans delay law limiting death row appeals.”
Ninth Circuit holds that, under the Treaty Clause of the U.S. Constitution, the United States may enter into a “treaty” with a non-sovereign entity, such as Hong Kong: A divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued this decision yesterday. The dissenting opinion, by contrast, concludes: “The question of whether the President has the constitutional authority to enter into treaties with non-sovereigns, like Hong Kong, is by its nature political and, thereby, non-justiciable.”
“New panel, date for detainees’ hearing”: At “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post that begins, “The D.C. Circuit on Wednesday named a new — and more senior — panel of judges to hear the appeals in the cases of the detainees now being held captive at the U.S. Naval prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The panel also moved up the date of the hearing, to September 8.”
“The Proper Scope of Questioning for Judicial Nominees”: The U.S. Senate‘s Republican Policy Committee issued this report on Tuesday.
Don’t have a [motor vehicle collision with a] cow, man! This may at first seem to be an odd title for a post in which I am thanking my hosts from the Houston Bar Association‘s Appellate Practice Section for the very warm reception I received in speaking to that group yesterday. Getting to meet so very many fans of this blog in Houston yesterday made for a most enjoyable trip, and the Houston Bar Association should be very proud of the thriving nature of its Appellate Practice Section. (In other words, I was amazed that so many braved the heat and humidity of a late-July afternoon in downtown Houston to come and hear some law blogger give a talk). It was also great to hear during yesterday’s program some insights about the current U.S. Supreme Court nominee from a member of the Appellate Practice Section who was in John G. Roberts, Jr.‘s law school class.
Thanks to a case update distributed at yesterday’s meeting, I learned that Ohio is not the only State where cow-motor vehicle collision cases are litigated on appeal. Unlike in the Ohio case, however, the recent Texas appellate ruling did not present the question “whether a cow is an uninsured motor vehicle under appellants’ insurance policy.” My favorite take on the Ohio ruling is available here thanks to the always witty Justice William W. Bedsworth of the California Court of Appeal.
“Democrats Press for Roberts’ Reagan-Era Papers”: This segment (RealPlayer required) appeared on today’s broadcast of NPR‘s “Morning Edition.”
“Pa. Court Strikes Down ‘Deep Pockets’ Tort Reform”: Insurance Journal provides this report on a ruling that the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania issued on Tuesday.
The Associated Press is reporting: Jesse J. Holland reports that “Dems Warn of Delay in Roberts Confirmation.”
In related news, “Roberts Would Be Fourth Catholic on Court.”
And an article reports that “Judges Keep Net Obscenity Law Intact.”
“Richey must remain on death row; A Scot will remain on death row in the US until the Supreme Court decides whether or not he will be retried”: BBC News provides this report.
And The Lima (Ohio) News reports that “Supreme Court justice places Richey’s case on hold.” According to the article:
Ken Parsigian, a Boston attorney representing Richey, said the order will delay the process by a few months. He said there still remains little chance the Supreme Court actually will take the case.
Parsigian also said he doubts Justice Stevens actually sat down to read the briefs before issuing the order. He said it’s likely a staff person handled the matter and Stevens signed off without giving it a careful look.
“If Justice Stevens actually sat down and read these papers I would bet large sums of my own money he would deny it,” Parsigian said.
Some things, perhaps, are better left unsaid.
“What the Co-Equal Branch Thinks: Enlighten the justice-to-be about the Senate’s take on legal debates.” Law Professor Neal K. Katyal has this op-ed in this week’s issue of Legal Times.
Just in time for the weekend: At 5 p.m. eastern time tomorrow, this eBay auction of a Justice Sandra Day O’Connor bobblehead doll will conclude.
Bob Egelko is reporting: Today in The San Francisco Chronicle, he has articles headlined “State top court to decide on sentence in Knoller case; Justices to decide on reduction of conviction to manslaughter in fatal S.F. dog mauling” and “High court puts energy initiative back on ballot; Move overturns state appellate ruling on Prop. 80.”
“Judge OKs Utahn’s 3 ‘gay’ plates; Motor Vehicles Division has 30 days to appeal”: The Deseret Morning News contains this article today.
And today in The Salt Lake Tribune, columnist Holly Mullen has an essay entitled “GAYPLAT is cool, sez judge.”
“Charged issues fill Roberts’ writings”: This article appears today in The Chicago Tribune, along with an op-ed by Law Professor Geoffrey R. Stone entitled “President Bush’s blink: Bush promised to appoint justices like those he most admires; He has broken that promise.”
The New York Times today contains articles headlined “Panel Sends Judge 10-Page Questionnaire” and “Back in the Spotlight on Judicial Nominee.”
The Washington Post reports that “Access to Records May Be a Sticking Point; Democrats Push for Prompt Review.”
The Los Angeles Times reports that “Struggle Over Access to Roberts’ Memos Intensifies; The White House, citing attorney-client privilege, stands firm; Senate Democrats press harder, saying they need to review the information.”
Newsday contains an article headlined “Roberts tied to shifts in Justice policy” that begins, “In 1982, some career attorneys at the Justice Department grumbled to the press about what they called the “Rehnquist connection” and how it provided the intellectual underpinning for abrupt shifts in policy to the right, particularly on civil rights.”
The Knight Ridder Newspapers report that “Distinction between Roberts’ released, withheld writings questioned” and “Memos reveal Roberts’ strong advocacy for judicial restraint.”
The Baltimore Sun contains an article headlined “Where conservatives debate the law: Federalist Society mined for clues to thoughts of Bush pick for high court.”
In The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Michael McGough reports that “Roberts’ documents from early ’80s show a true believer in Reagan.” And in other coverage, “White House, Democrats spar over Roberts’ memos; Administration invokes attorney-client privilege.”
The Washington Times reports that “Democrats seek view on Roe from Roberts” and “Prayer bills ‘bad policy,’ Roberts wrote in ’85 memo.”
USA Today reports that “Media war over nominee still just a rumble; Roberts ad blitz stalls; interest groups’ voices may get louder in Sept.”
The Orlando Sentinel reports that “Roberts’ job ‘surprised’ Gov. Bush.”
The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reports that “Feingold, Schumer reassured by Roberts’ talk of stability; Nominee meeting with senators before hearings.”
The Cincinnati Enquirer reports that “DeWine meets privately with high court nominee.”
The Cleveland Plain Dealer reports that “DeWine, Roberts have ‘nice discussion.’”
The Hispanic Link News Service reports that “Latino leaders have mixed reactions to Roberts nomination.”
And The Daily Pennsylvanian contains articles headlined “Specter to play leading role in Court battle; Penn alum, chair of Judiciary Committee to lead Senate hearing” and “Annenberg expert — Roberts a question mark.”
In commentary, The Wall Street Journal contains an editorial entitled “The Roberts Docu-Drama: The White House hurts its own executive privilege case.”
[More to come.]
“Bush nominee frustrates GOP senator at hearing; Specter says support may be in jeopardy”: The Chicago Tribune today contains an article that begins, “After politely sparring with Timothy Flanigan, a peeved Sen. Arlen Specter, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, hinted Tuesday he might not support President Bush’s choice to serve as second-in-command of the Justice Department if Flanigan wasn’t more willing to allow lawmakers to look over his shoulder.”
