Wednesday, September 9, 2009
"Unprecedented: Watching the Supreme Court make its campaign finance jurisprudence disappear." Dahlia Lithwick has this Supreme Court dispatch online at Slate.
Posted at 11:00 PM by Howard Bashman
"Sonia Sotomayor jumps in to question lawyers": Pete Yost of The Associated Press has this report.
Posted at 06:00 PM by Howard Bashman
"Without GOP Support, Leahy Pushes for More Judges": David Ingram has this post today at "The BLT: The Blog of Legal Times."
Posted at 04:03 PM by Howard Bashman
"Guantanamo photos of accused 9/11 mastermind posted on Web": Carol Rosenberg of The Miami Herald has this news update.
"Justices Are Pressed for Broad Ruling in Campaign Case": Adam Liptak will have this article Thursday in The New York Times.
Robert Barnes of The Washington Post has a news update headlined "Court Conservatives Concerned About Campaign Spending Limits."
David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times has a news update headlined "Supreme Court weighs lifting ban on corporate funding of candidates; The court, joined by new Justice Sonia Sotomayor, hears a special argument on whether companies should have the same free-speech rights as individuals."
Joan Biskupic of USA Today has a news update headlined "Court hears pre-term case on Clinton film."
Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that "Top Court Questions Corporate Election Spending Curbs."
James Vicini of Reuters reports that "Supreme Court questions company campaign spending limits."
Mark Sherman and Pete Yost of The Associated Press report that "Supreme Court receptive to freer election spending."
At "SCOTUSblog," Lyle Denniston has a post titled "Two precedents in jeopardy."
And at "The BLT: The Blog of Legal Times," Tony Mauro has posts titled "Supreme Court Majority Critical of Campaign Law Precedents" and "Photos from the Supreme Court Plaza."
You can access the transcript of today's U.S. Supreme Court oral argument at this link. And, via C-SPAN, you can access the audio of today's oral argument at this link.
"The Supreme Court wrestled on Wednesday with whether to allow corporations and labor unions to pay for political campaigns and end a century of legislative efforts to curb such spending." So begins this report from Mark Sherman and Pete Yost of The Associated Press.
"Appeals court rules judge coerced verdict": Today in The San Francisco Chronicle, Bob Egelko has an article that begins, "The judge in a Sacramento sexual assault trial improperly tipped the scales toward guilt by telling a deadlocked jury to focus on evidence that turned out to support the prosecution's case, a federal appeals court ruled Tuesday."
"Court OKs barring religious tunes at graduation": Bob Egelko has this article today in The San Francisco Chronicle.
"Court: Holocaust survivor can sue for painting." The Associated Press has this report on a ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued yesterday.
Posted at 07:48 AM by Howard Bashman
"The Newest Justice Takes Her Seat": Adam Liptak has this article today in The New York Times.
Today in The Washington Post, Robert Barnes reports that "The Newest Justice Formally Takes Her Seat; Obama and Biden On Hand to Wish Sotomayor Well."
"'Hillary: The Movie' gets new airing at high court." Mark Sherman of The Associated Press has this report.
James Vicini of Reuters reports that "U.S. court considers corporate spending on elections."
Warren Richey of The Christian Science Monitor has articles headlined "'Hillary' case: the legal stakes -- Three Supreme Court justices have already announced their willingness to overturn a pair of key precedents" and "Supreme Court: campaign finance overhaul in 'Hillary' case? At stake in a case it will re-hear Wednesday is whether corporations and unions should enjoy the same rights to political speech as individuals."
And yesterday in USA Today, Joan Biskupic had an article headlined "Court hears pre-term case on Clinton film; Sotomayor's first session is on corporate cash in politics."