“Clarence Thomas’ Questions, Part 2: The Final Flurry.” Mike Sacks of The Huffington Post has this report.

And online at The Root, Michael Steele has an essay entitled “Are We Ready to Understand Thomas? Rather than simply judge him, blacks should look at how his hard life shaped his conservative views.”

Twenty years ago today, the U.S. Senate voted to confirm Clarence Thomas to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States by a vote of 52-to-48.

“Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan speaks in Tampa”: The Associated Press has a report that begins, “U.S. Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan, who had never served as a judge before she joined the court, offered a group of bankruptcy judges a glimpse Saturday of her role as a quick learner.”

“Judge Finds in Favor of DOJ in Suit Regarding Kagan’s Role in Health Care Litigation”: Marcia Coyle has this post yesterday at “The BLT: The Blog of Legal Times.”

You can access Thursday’s ruling of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia at this link.

“Federal court blocks parts of Alabama immigration law; For the time being, schools won’t be required to check the residency status of students; But some other provisions are allowed to stand”: This article appears today in The Los Angeles Times.

The New York Times reports today that “Part of Alabama Immigrant Law Blocked.”

The Huntsville Times reports that “Appeals court trims Alabama immigration law, legal fight to continue.”

The Montgomery Advertiser reports that “Federal appeals court blocks parts of state’s immigration law.”

And The Christian Science Monitor reports that “Appeals court curtails Alabama immigration law, for now; A US appeals court temporarily blocked two requirements of the tough Alabama immigration law: one that schools check new students’ immigration status and one that immigrants carry special ID.”

“College Diversity Nears Its Last Stand”: Adam Liptak will have this news analysis in the Sunday Review section of tomorrow’s edition of The New York TImes.

“GOP: Gays don’t need special legal protections.” Today in The San Francisco Chronicle, Bob Egelko has an article that begins, “With more than half of Americans in a recent poll accepting same-sex marriage, gays and lesbians need no judicial protection from laws passed by Congress, House Republicans argued Friday in a San Francisco court in defense of a law denying federal benefits to same-sex spouses.”

And The Associated Press reports that “US House group files motion in gay marriage suit.”

“Judges’ deaths add to 9th Circuit backlog; The nation’s busiest appeals court has lost five judges this year”: Carol J. Williams has this article today in The Los Angeles Times.

“The Supreme Court: When Double Jeopardy Isn’t Double Jeopardy.” Time magazine has this report.

“Court won’t review decision on Soledad cross”: Today’s edition of The San Diego Union-Tribune contains an article that begins, “A federal appeals court has declined to review an earlier decision that the cross atop Mount Soledad in La Jolla is unconstitutional, clearing the way for supporters of the controversial landmark to try to take the case to the U.S. Supreme Court.”

You can access yesterday’s order of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denying rehearing en banc, and the opinion dissenting therefrom, at this link.