“Bush Says G.O.P. Rebels Are Putting Nation at Risk”: This article will appear Saturday in The New York Times, along with an article headlined “Military Lawyers Caught in Middle on Tribunals.”

The Washington Post on Saturday will contain a front page article headlined “GOP Infighting on Detainees Intensifies; Bush Threatens to Halt CIA Program if Congress Passes Rival Proposal.”

The Los Angeles Times provides a news update headlined “Bush, Republican Senators Differ on Interrogation.”

And McClatchy Newspapers report that “Position on detainee trials comes at political risk for GOP senators” and “Bush threatens to shut CIA interrogation program.”

Available online from law.com: Marcia Coyle reports that “New Supreme Court Term Promises Early Drama.”

Shannon P. Duffy reports that “Former Reed Smith Partner Selected for 3rd Circuit.”

And the brand new installment of my “On Appeal” column is headlined “When Can an Inmate ‘Volunteer’ for Death? 9th Circuit rejects a competent inmate’s decision to abandon legal challenge to his capital sentence.”

Clarence Hill is one step closer to execution: In June, Hill won a unanimous victory before the U.S. Supreme Court when the Court ruled that Hill could rely on the federal civil rights statute to bring a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of a three-drug sequence the State of Florida likely would use to execute him by lethal injection. Today, however, a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit ruled, in a per curiam opinion you can access here, that Hill was not entitled to a stay of execution to pursue the trial court’s dismissal of his federal civil rights action.

In a post at his “Sentencing Law and Policy” blog, Doug Berman writes, “it does not appear that Hill has even received an adjudication of his claim on the merits in the district court, and the Eleventh Circuit decision today never considers the substance of Hill’s underlying Eighth Amendment claim.”

An interesting appellate jurisdiction deadline-for-appeal ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit: The judgment on a separate document rule and the rule requiring a federal district court in certain instances to approve the form of the judgment are both involved in this ruling issued today. I’m going to have to look at this decision closely to see whether I agree with the court’s rationale in holding that the rule providing that the absence of a separate document no longer precludes an appealable order from arising 150 days later also excuses a federal district court’s obligation in certain instances to approve the form of the judgment.

“Toobin: Bush ‘playing chicken’ with senators.” CNN.com has posted online this transcript.

“Officials Say SD Tourism Boycott Failed”: The Associated Press provides a report that begins, “A threatened tourism boycott of South Dakota over new state law that bans nearly all abortions has had little effect on travel, officials said.”

“Roberts’ First Year: Kenneth Starr takes part in a discussion on the impact of Chief Justice John Roberts first year on the Supreme Court.” You can view, online and on demand, last Saturday’s broadcast of C-SPAN‘s “America & the Courts” program by clicking here (RealPlayer required). Toward the end of the broadcast, one journalist discusses the impact of blogs on the U.S Supreme Court confirmation process.

“The Supreme Court: Past and Prologue; A Look at the October 2005 and October 2006 Terms.” Much of the Cato Institute’s day-long seminar — held yesterday in Washington, DC — is available for viewing or listening via this link.

Sixth Circuit Chief Judge Danny J. Boggs delivered the concluding address, and you can launch the video by clicking here (RealPlayer required).

On today’s broadcast of NPR‘s “Day to Day“: The broadcast contained audio segments entitled “Bush Defends Changes to Detainee Rules“; “Senate GOP Pushes Back on Detainee Rules“; “A Profile of the ‘Guardian of Guantanamo’“; and “Democrats Seek Middle Ground on Abortion” (RealPlayer required).

“This is an interlocutory appeal by criminal defendants challenging a requirement that pretrial detainees making their first appearance before a magistrate judge wear leg shackles.” So began an opinion that the majority on divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued on November 15, 2005. The majority went on to hold that the requirement could not be upheld on the present record, which lacked “a reasoned determination that it is justified on the basis of past experiences or present circumstances in the Central District.” My earlier post reporting on that decision can be accessed here.

Today, the very same three-judge panel issued an order vacating its earlier decision and substituting a new, unanimous ruling that upholds the shackling policy based on the current record.

“US federal judge declares boating illegal in all US navigable waters”: International Boat Industry Magazine provides this report. Whether the report’s headline provides a fair summary of last month’s ruling of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Lousiana I’ll leave for others to decide.

“Brandeis free-speech dissent published online for 1st time”: The First Amendment Center provides this report. You can access the dissent by clicking here.

“State’s HP Case May Be Tough to Win”: The Los Angeles Times today contains an article that begins, “California Atty. Gen. Bill Lockyer may have a difficult time convicting Hewlett-Packard Co. officials involved in the company’s spying scandal because it’s not at all clear that state law will enable him to put anybody behind bars, lawyers and privacy experts said Thursday.”

“Pataki Chided Over State Court Appointments”: The New York Times contains this article today.

“Rebuff for Bush on Terror Trials in a Senate Test”: This article appears today in The New York Times, which also contains a related editorial entitled “Stampeding Congress.”

The Washington Post today contains a front page article headlined “Senators Defy Bush On Terror Measure; Panel Backs Rival Bill On Interrogations.” An editorial is entitled “A Defining Moment for America: The president goes to Capitol Hill to lobby for torture.” And Al Kamen’s “In the Loop” column is headlined “10 Things to Know About Guantanamo.”

The Los Angeles Times reports that “Senate Panel Rebuffs Bush on Detainees; Bipartisan approval of the bill widening the rights of prisoners in the war on terrorism comes as Colin Powell rejects the president’s policy.” And Joshua Muravchik has an op-ed entitled “Weakening Rights to Save Them: The greatest victories for freedom, such as World War II, came at the temporary expense of some liberties.”

USA Today contains a front page article headlined “Strategy on terror suspects splits GOP; Key senators say no to Bush plan.”

The Washington Times reports that “Republicans defy Bush over detainees.”

And today’s broadcast of NPR‘s “Morning Edition” contained audio segments entitled “GOP Senators Break with President over Detainees“; “Senate Rebellion Breaks Out Against White House“; and “Moazzam Begg: From Pakistan to Guantanamo” (RealPlayer required).

“Breyer weighs in on Constitution, politics”: The Yale Daily News contains this article today, while a related photo is at this link.

“Terror conspiracy trial faces delay; The pending Miami terror trial of Jose Padilla and two other Muslim men looks like it’s on hold until the appeal of a judge’s ruling is resolved”: This article appears today in The Miami Herald.

And The South Florida Sun-Sentinel reports today that “Judge orders government to share medical records of terror suspect Jose Padilla.”

“High Court to Post Same-Day Transcripts”: Charles Lane has this article today in The Washington Post.

“Some Lawyers Ranked ‘Super’ Are Not the Least Bit Flattered”: The New York Times today contains an article that begins, “Word of mouth is one crucial marketing tool for a lawyer. Getting your name on a list of top lawyers can be another, unless the list is distributed to consumers in New Jersey. In an opinion that has set off a nationwide discussion, an ethics committee appointed by the New Jersey Supreme Court concluded this summer that a magazine advertising supplement listing the state’s top lawyers violated rules of professional conduct.”

“Anti-Abortion Group Loses Tax Exemption”: This article appears today in The New York Times.

“Indians Argue Against Ski Resort Plan”: David Kravets of The Associated Press provides a report that begins, “Attorneys for Southwestern Indian tribes urged a federal appeals court Thursday to block the proposed expansion of an Arizona ski resort they say already desecrates land they hold sacred and sullies their religious beliefs. During the hearing, a panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals appeared skeptical about allowing Arizona Snowbowl to become the nation’s first ski resort to use 100 percent reclaimed water – treated sewage – to make snow.”

You can download the audio of yesterday’s oral argument before a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit by clicking here (Windows Media format; right-click to download).

The federal district court ruling that the Ninth Circuit is reviewing can be accessed here (via “Religion Clause” blog).

“Spam fighter hit with $11 million judgment”: c|net News.com provides this report.

Sixth Circuit reinstates the federal civil rights claims asserted by heckler at Cleveland Indians baseball game who was ejected for using profane language and then arrested for disorderly conduct: You can access today’s ruling at this link.

The majority opinion concludes, “For a baseball fan to make a ‘federal case’ out of being ejected from a game may well strike many as a colossal waste of judicial resources. A jury might well agree. But this is the type of case where the ultimate result is totally dependent on whose version of the facts one believes. Under these circumstances, the grant of summary judgment to the police officer on the basis of qualified immunity is inappropriate.”

“Judges get raises back, Pa. Supreme Court rules”: This article appears today in The Harrisburg Patriot-News, along with an article headlined “Voters’ anger boils again.”

The New York Times reports today that “Pennsylvania Judges Decide They, Alone, Will Get Raises.”

The Philadelphia Inquirer reports that “Pa. court splits its decision on raises; Lawmakers were wrong, it says, but don’t have to repay; Judges’ hike was reinstated.”

The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reports that “Pa. Supreme Court decides judges can keep controversial pay raises; Justices overrule measure by legislators that canceled increases.”

The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review reports that “Judges uphold their raises.”

The Allentown Morning Call reports that “Top court restores raises for judges in Pennsylvania; Although lawmakers lost the increases they gave themselves, jurists have protection in law.”

The York Daily News reports that “Court axes early raise; But legislators don’t have to give back their ‘unvouchered expenses.’”

And The Express-Times of Easton, Pennsylvania contains an editorial entitled “Justices keep raises; let’s make sure they don’t keep their jobs.” The editorial concludes, “When these judges come up for retention, voters should send the message that Pennsylvanians won’t tolerate sneaks in the Legislature or enablers on the bench.”

My earlier coverage appears at this link.

“How Has 9/11 Affected American Constitutional Law? The Three Intersecting Cross-Currents that Have Affected Liberty, Security, and Government Accountability.” Edward Lazarus has this essay online today at FindLaw.