“Tucson shooting suspect appeals forced medication”: The Associated Press has this report.

“Forecasting the Supreme Court Vote on ‘Obamacare'”: Political science professors Michael Bailey and Forrest Maltzman have this guest post at “The Monkey Cage” blog.

“Is there no limit to Congress’s power?” In yesterday’s edition of The Washington Post, columnist George F. Will had an op-ed that begins, “Shortly before the Supreme Court agreed to rule on the constitutionality of Obamacare’s individual mandate, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit affirmed its constitutionality.”

“Clarence Thomas’ Questions, Part 3: The Myth of Scalia’s Puppet Is Quashed As Quickly As It’s Created.” Mike Sacks of The Huffington Post has this report.

“We therefore conclude that the district court applied the incorrect legal standard in approving the proposed cy pres distribution and, therefore, abused its discretion.” So holds a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit today in a decision addressing challenges to a class action settlement in a case in which the plaintiffs alleged that America Online wrongfully inserted footers containing promotional messages into e-mails sent by AOL subscribers.

“Senate to take up judicial nominations after break”: Reuters has this report. The article states that “The Senate will take up the nomination of U.S. District Judge Christopher Droney to be a judge on the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals on Monday, November 28, according to a Senate schedule posted on the Senate Democrats’ offical website on Friday.”

“Conservative federal appeals court shifts left; Recent opinions reveal a possible liberal leaning”: Sunday’s edition of The Baltimore Sun contained this article.

“Defending the Brady rule: Reforms are needed to make sure prosecutors share all evidence that could be helpful to defendants.” This editorial appears today in The Los Angeles Times.

“Justice for the highest bidder? Take the courts out of politics.” Today’s edition of The Chicago Tribune contains an editorial that begins, “During the brutal 2004 campaign in southern Illinois for a seat on the state Supreme Court, an investigator for a group of trial lawyers waited patiently outside the Okawville, Ill., campaign office of Republican candidate Lloyd Karmeier each garbage day.”

“Why Won’t The Supreme Court Allow TV Cameras? Our justices aren’t used to being second-guessed, but it’s time to demand more transparency in the highest court in the land.” Adam Cohen has this essay online today at Time magazine.

“Supreme Court lawyers allowed to dress down”: This article appears today in The Independent (UK).