Wednesday, October 7, 2009
"Religion Largely Absent in Argument About Cross": Adam Liptak will have this article Thursday in The New York Times.
In Thursday's edition of The Washington Post, Robert Barnes will have an article headlined "Court Wades Shallowly Into Church and State; Argument Over Cross on Public Land Deals Minimally With the Broader Issue."
David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times has a news update headlined "Supreme Court debates legality of Mojave cross; Justices take up the issue of whether the display of a cross in a national preserve is a violation of the 1st Amendment ban on establishment of religion."
Joan Biskupic of USA Today has a news update headlined "Justices appear divided over cross on park land."
Michael Doyle of McClatchy Newspapers reports that "Supreme Court debates cross on California national parkland."
Warren Richey of The Christian Science Monitor reports that "Supreme Court weighs arguments over Mojave cross; Did Congress try to bypass court orders and keep a cross on federal land? That's one question in the Supreme Court case about a cross erected in a national park in 1934 to honor the war dead."
Mark Sherman of The Associated Press has a report headlined "Sharp debate at high court over cross on US land."
James Vicini of Reuters reports that "Supreme Court hears dispute on cross on park land."
Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that "Cross Removal Order Divides U.S. High Court Justices."
Bill Mears of CNN.com has articles headlined "Justices weigh constitutionality of war memorial cross" and "For caretakers, cross is about a promise to a friend."
At "The BLT: The Blog of Legal Times," Tony Mauro has a post titled "Cross-Currents Muddle Mojave Cross Case."
At "SCOTUSblog," Lyle Denniston has a post titled "A case of disappearing issues."
And online at Slate, Dahlia Lithwick has a Supreme Court dispatch headlined "Cross-Eyed: The high court looks again at religious symbols on public lands."
Programming note: This morning, I'll be meeting with co-counsel to prepare for an upcoming oral argument before the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
Additional posts will appear here later today.
Update: The Phillies won this afternoon's game by the score of 5-1. You can access the box score at this link. MLB.com reports that "Rockies' bats silent against Lee; Jimenez cruises through first four innings before faltering." And The Philadelphia Inquirer has a news update headlined "Lee stymies Rockies in Game 1."
"Court hears arguments about cross on park land": Mark Sherman of The Associated Press has this report.
At ABCNews.com, Ariane de Vogue has a report headlined "Supreme Court Hears Mojave Cross Case; Justices to Decide if Memorial to WW I Vets Constitutional."
The New York Times contains an editorial entitled "The Constitution and the Cross."
And The Los Angeles Times contains an editorial entitled "The Mojave cross case: Will the Supreme Court stand up for the 1st Amendment?"
"Court Wary of Ban On Cruelty Videos; Animal Rights Law Finds Little Support": Robert Barnes has this article today in The Washington Post.
Today in The Los Angeles Times, David G. Savage reports that "Supreme Court weighs free speech vs. animal cruelty; Justices ponder the possibility of a 'Human Sacrifice Channel' in a case involving a man who sold videos of pit bulls fighting; Some fear reviving a law against such films could lead to its misuse."
Joan Biskupic of USA Today has an article headlined "Animal cruelty law too broad, justices suggest; Case examines whether rules against heinous images restrict free speech."
Paula Reed Ward of The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reports that "Justices hear a dogfight over speech, animal rights."
And law.com's Tony Mauro reports that "Hypotheticals Dominate Animal Cruelty Argument at High Court."
"In Code and in Specifics, Judges Debate Lewd Office Talk; Plaintiff argues that workplace use of gender-based slurs is discrimination": law.com has this report on an en banc oral argument before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
Posted at 07:08 AM by Howard Bashman
"Does the Second Amendment Bind the States?" Michael C. Dorf has this essay online at FindLaw.
Posted at 07:04 AM by Howard Bashman