“Work on Rights Might Illuminate Roberts’s Views; Democrats Seek Papers, But Administration Balks”: This front page article will appear Thursday in The Washington Post.
The New York Times on Thursday will report that “Senate Democrats Pushing for Roberts’s Legal Memos.”
And The Los Angeles Times provides a news update headlined “Democrats Again Request Roberts Papers; Senators say the files are more crucial now that he’s been nominated to lead the high court; The White House maintains they are off-limits.”
“Custody After Civil Union Pits States and Judges”: Adam Liptak will have this article Thursday in The New York Times.
In commentary: The New York Times today contains an editorial entitled “A Defender of Independent Courts.”
USA Today contains an editorial entitled “Rehnquist’s legacy” and an op-ed by Tony Mauro entitled “Ironies abound as Rehnquist leaves us; Hurricane Katrina is feeding the discussion of government’s role, state vs. federal; It’s a debate that the chief justice knew quite well.”
The Orlando Sentinel contains an editorial entitled “Avoid partisan warfare: There’s no reason to stall confirmation hearings on John Roberts.”
The Birmingham News contains an editorial entitled “Why not Roberts for chief justice?”
The Courier-Journal of Louisville contains an editorial entitled “Not so fast.”
The Indianapolis Star contains an editorial entitled “Bush should aim right without regret.”
Newsday contains an editorial entitled “Now it’s chief justice; Naming Roberts saves Bush some grief.”
The Hartford Courant contains an editorial entitled “The Next Chief Justice.”
The Cincinnati Enquirer contains an editorial entitled “Washington focuses on chief justice.”
The Patriot-News of Harrisburg contains an editorial entitled “Timely decision.”
The Rocky Mountain News contains an editorial entitled “Roberts wise choice for chief justice.”
The San Diego Union-Tribune contains an editorial entitled “Reshaping the court: Roberts choice sound, now for the next one.” Columnist Ruben Navarrette Jr. has an op-ed entitled “A blemish on his record.” And Law Professor David Steinberg has an op-ed entitled “The conservative revolution that never happened.”
The Gainesville Times contains an editorial entitled “Bush should take his time with next justice nomination.”
The Ventura County Star contains an editorial entitled “Shrewd move on nomination; President gains breathing room.”
The Virginian-Pilot contains an editorial entitled “Judge Roberts right for the times.”
The Journal News of Westchester, New York contains an editorial entitled “The rise of John Roberts.”
The Kennebec Journal contains an editorial entitled “Judge Roberts should not squander precious opportunity.”
Florida Today contains an editorial entitled “Need straight answers; Judge Roberts should get even more scrutiny, now that he’s tabbed for chief justice.”
In The Boston Globe, columnist Jeff Jacoby has an op-ed entitled “Supreme Court term limits.”
Yesterday in The Wall Street Journal, Law Professor Randy E. Barnett had an op-ed entitled “William Rehnquist.”
Today in The Philadelphia Daily News, Christine M. Flowers has an op-ed entitled “Judging William Rehnquist.”
In The Washington Times, Cal Thomas has an op-ed entitled “Supreme opportunity.”
In The Seattle Weekly, Geov Parrish has an essay entitled “Borking John Roberts.”
Online at Slate, Cliff Sloan has an essay entitled “The Mourning After: John Roberts grieves for his mentor.” Law Professors Risa Goluboff and Richard Schragger have an essay entitled “The Real World: Why judicial philosophies matter.” And Bruce Reed’s “The Has-Been” has a post titled “Real Men Don’t Wear Robes: The unlikely story of how John Roberts chose his brilliant career.”
From The Weekly Standard, William Kristol has an essay entitled “Snatching Defeat from the Jaws of Victory? Will Bush nominate a conservative for the O’Connor seat?” And Terry Eastland has an essay entitled “The Specter of Superprecedents: The Judiciary Committee chairman’s super bad idea.”
Online at The American Prospect, Michael Tomasky has an essay entitled “The Other Legacy: The unbearable whiteness of William Rehnquist.” And Deborah Pearlstein has an essay entitled “A Branch More Dangerous: William Rehnquist’s Supreme Court grew hungrier and more assertive.”
The National Review has an editorial entitled “And Then There Were Two.” And Clarke D. Forsythe has an essay entitled “Justice Restraint: Law and the rules of order.”
Finally, online at The New Republic, Law Professor William J. Stuntz has an essay entitled “Hearing Loss: Senators have put off their questioning of John Roberts until Monday, but here’s a better idea: They should cancel the event altogether; An argument against hearings for Supreme Court nominees.” And David Kusnet has an essay entitled “Give and Take: What Roberts will likely say at his hearing, and how Democratic senators should respond.”
“Court upholds Boyle decision on proposed airfield”: The News & Observer of Raleigh, North Carolina provides this news update.
“‘Conservative’ v. ‘Liberal’ Courts – A reality check”: This very interesting post appears online at “Have Opinion, Will Travel.” I offered some similar thoughts in my monthly appellate column from December 2002 entitled “Activist U.S. Court of Appeals Judges: Myth or Reality?”
The Jaded JD emails: In response to my question about whether the U.S. Supreme Court was about to have a Chief Justice doorkeeper:
The Chief Justice can never be the most junior member of the Supreme Court. He is, by definition, the most senior member of the Court. Seniority is only in issue for Associate Justices. See 28 U.S.C. sec. 4 (“Associate justices shall have precedence according to the seniority of their commissions. Justices whose commissions bear the same date shall have precedence according to seniority in age.”)
And the email also cites this blog post from the email’s author.
Available online from law.com: An article is headlined “The Judiciary Committee’s Star Turn; With a nation watching, senators get the chance to vent, push favorite causes and do some campaigning.”
In other news, “9th Circuit Slashes Damages for Abortion Foes From $109M to $5M.”
And an article reports that “11th Circuit Judge Blasts Colleagues for Sentencing Stance.”
This is not meant to suggest that I find specifically humorous anything about the “InstaPundit” post to which I’m about to link: Law Professor Glenn Harlan Reynolds has this humorous post noting a correction that Legal Times issued recently.
Reader email: A longtime reader emails, “Stripes aside, the more interesting question is: If the Chief Justice is also the junior member of the Supreme Court, does he still have to serve as the doorkeeper?” While it appears certain that John G. Roberts, Jr. would have been in charge of the door had he replaced Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, I don’t know the answer to this question, although I would guess not. If anyone has a more authoritative answer, please feel free to send it in via email.
In news pertaining to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit: Today in The San Francisco Chronicle, Bob Egelko reports that “Award cut in abortion doctor case; ‘Wanted’ posters had names and addresses.”
And The Sacramento Bee reports today that “Court blocks electricity refunds; State cannot recover from utilities owned by governments.”
“Schwarzenegger Vows Gay Marriage Bill Veto”: The Associated Press provides this report.
The stripes: The other day, a reader emailed to ask whether I expected Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. to wear on his judicial robe the gold stripes that Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist wore. According to this explanation (sixth item) for the stripes that Justice Sandra Day O’Connor gave during today’s funeral, I’d say Chief Justice Roberts would be unlikely to retain the stripes given their original intent.
As to whether Chief Justice Roberts will silence advocates mid-syllable when the red light switches on, only time will tell. Given Judge Roberts’s junior status on the D.C. Circuit, it is doubtful that he has much (any?) experience enforcing the red light at oral argument.
“The Post-Rehnquist Supreme Court”: This segment (RealPlayer required) featuring Warren Richey appeared on today’s broadcast of the public radio program “Here and Now.”
“Bush, O’Connor lead tributes to Rehnquist”: Stephen Henderson and Ron Hutcheson of Knight Ridder Newspapers provide this report.
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit rejects for lack of standing a challenge to Securities and Exchange Commission rules intended to avoid “market timing” in the purchase and sale of mutual fund shares: Today’s ruling, by a unanimous three-judge panel, can be accessed here.
“Not the usual solemn proceeding”: Online at “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston provides this report concerning today’s funeral service of Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist.
“President Honors Memory of Chief Justice William Rehnquist”: A transcript of the remarks that President Bush delivered today at the funeral of Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist can be accessed here.
“White House Wants Gitmo Appeal Rejected”: The Associated Press provides this report.
U.S. District Judge convinces Ninth Circuit of error in disposition of case remanded to him and is rewarded by having the case reassigned to another trial judge: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued this interesting order today, citing among other authorities to M. Margaret McKeown, Don’t Shoot the Canons: Maintaining the Appearance of Propriety Standard, 7 J. App. Prac. & Process 45, 53-58 (2005), which appears in the same issue of that journal as my related article.
“Appeals Court Upholds Menendez Convictions”: The Associated Press provides a report that begins, “A federal appeals court Wednesday upheld the convictions of Erik and Lyle Menendez, two brothers convicted of murdering their parents in their Beverly Hills mansion, a case that generated headlines across the globe.” You can access today’s ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit at this link.
“Mourners Gather for Rehnquist Funeral”: Nina Totenberg had this report (RealPlayer required) on this evening’s broadcast of NPR‘s “All Things Considered.”
“Funeral Service Honors ‘Great Chief Justice'”: law.com’s Tony Mauro provides this news update.
“The Squeezing of Lawyer-Client Privilege”: This article appears today in The New York Times.
Fourth Circuit decides case of Super Hornet vs. National Wildlife Refuge waterfowl: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit today issued its decision in National Audubon Society v. Department of the Navy, a case in which U.S. District Judge (and Fourth Circuit nominee) Terrence W. Boyle enjoined the Navy from constructing a landing field for this new type of aircraft near Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, the winter home for nearly 100,000 waterfowl.
Where a criminal indictment for possession of cocaine with intent to distribute fails to specify the amount of cocaine involved, the defendant may not be sentenced to a term of imprisonment longer than the statutory maximum for a violation of that crime with an unspecified quantity of drugs: Today a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled, in a decision you can access here, that the foregoing sentencing limitation applies even where the defendant, in his guilty plea allocution, admits to possessing a specific quantity of cocaine that would allow for an even longer sentence.
“Chief Justice Remembered as an Intellect and a Wagerer”: The New York Times provides this news update.
“Court upholds ruling on license photo”: The Daytona Beach News-Journal today contains an article that begins, “A local appeals court says the constitutional rights of a Muslim woman who wanted to wear a veil in her driver’s license photo were not violated and she must follow the state law requiring full face photos.” You can access last Friday’s ruling of Florida’s Fifth District Court of Appeal at this link.
“Rehnquist’s Coffin Leaves the Court; Following Funeral Service at St. Matthew’s Cathedral, Chief Justice to Be Buried in Arlington National Cemetery”: The Washington Post provides this news update.
And The Associated Press reports that “Bush, O’Connor, Family Remember Rehnquist.”
Circuit Justice reallocation: In advance of the rereallocation and rerereallocation that will occur as two new Justices join the U.S. Supreme Court, today’s developments are here (helpfully analyzed by “SCOTUSblog” here).
The Library of Congress‘s Law Library of Congress offers online access to a wealth of U.S. Supreme Court confirmation-related resources: In particular, you can access online both the “John G. Roberts Nomination Collection” (featuring a link to “How Appealing” in the section devoted to “Web Resources Relating to Supreme Court Nominations“) and “Supreme Court Nomination Documents” (featuring links to hearings and floor debates, statements, and votes for all nominees confirmed to the Court since 1971).
“Lawmakers Seek to Foil Property Seizures”: The Associated Press provides this report.
“How John Roberts Might Change The Law”: Stuart Taylor Jr. has this essay online at National Journal.
“Court cuts sum abortion protesters were to pay; The appeals court ruling is, in a way, symbolic because the defendants don’t have the millions they owe”: This article appears today in The Oregonian.
David Kravets of The Associated Press reports that “Calif. Court Cuts Abortion Doc Awards.”
And Reuters reports that “U.S. court says $109 mln in abortion case excessive.”
My earlier coverage is here.
“Senate Committee on the Judiciary: Supreme Court Nomination Hearings (1971 – forward).” The U.S. Government Printing Office provides this wonderful online resource affording access to transcripts of U.S. Supreme Court Justices’ confirmation hearings from 1971 to the present. The site offers no transcript of Robert H. Bork‘s hearing, however, and there is an unexplained eleven-year gap from 1994 to the present.
Bashmans in the news: The Philadelphia Daily News reports today that “Contest winner has ‘Fantastic’ summer.” My earlier mention of this appeared here.
