In second place! There’s nothing like a silly popularity contest to get the competitive juices flowing. As of this moment, “How Appealing” has jumped back into second place in the voting for “Best Law Blog” in The 2006 Weblog Awards, edging out at least for the moment some law blog operated by a law firm located in the United Kingdom.

In first place with a very comfortable lead — having more than three-times as many votes as the second place blog — is “The Volokh Conspiracy.” So, instead of wasting a vote for that fine blog — which seems assured to finish first no matter what, as well it should — vote for “How Appealing” so that this blog can retain second place.

You can vote once per computer, per web browser, every 24 hours. Simply click here to access the page where you can cast your vote.

Update: Overnight, my British rival for second place in the voting jumped out to a 40-vote lead, so please be sure to vote early and often today. Meanwhile, “The Volokh Conspiracy” continues to hold a very comfortable lead in first place.

“Crosses crusade handed 2nd defeat; Federal judge rejects Weinbaum suit aginst Las Cruces Public Schools”: Yesterday’s issue of The Las Cruces Sun-News contained this article. You can access last week’s ruling of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico at this link. Thanks to “Religion Clause” for the pointer.

“Adulterer wins the right to privacy; Celebrity figure protected by law; Husband’s desire for revenge blocked”: This article appeared last Tuesday in The Times of London, along with an article headlined “End of the affair for kiss-and-tell stories?”

The Telegraph (UK) reported last Tuesday that “Judge bans husband from naming adulterer.”

The Daily Mail (UK) last Wednesday contained an essay by Melanie Phillips entitled “Amorality and a ruling that protects adulterers and punishes victims.”

And today in The Observer (UK), Peter Preston has an op-ed entitled “We mustn’t tell you about … Oh, you know it all already.” The essay concludes, “So the ‘privacy’ involved here is the narrow relief of not seeing something in print. That’s dotty: it exalts whisperers and makes the law a most evident ass. We can’t tell you what you already know, because … well, because we can’t. Judges often take too much stick from an aggrieved, astonished press. Not this time, alas.”

“Courts – Status report on the availability and citation of not-for-publication opinions, at both the state and federal levels.” Marcia Oddi has this post at “The Indiana Law Blog.”

“In Re: Life or Death.” Yesterday in The Wall Street Journal, Law Professor Randy E. Barnett had an op-ed (pass-through link) that begins, “Much discussion of ‘judicial restraint’ or deference overlooks a crucial question: deference to whom — the legislature or the individual? This fundamental question is posed by two potentially landmark cases.” (Via “The Volokh Conspiracy“).

Please vote for “Best Law Blog” in The 2006 Weblog Awards: The polls opened Thursday evening and will remain open through December 15th. “How Appealing” is currently in third place out of ten contestants. Those who believe in the primacy of international law will be delighted to learn that the blog currently in second place, by a quite slender margin, is operated by a law firm located in the United Kingdom.

You can vote once per computer, per web browser, every 24 hours. Simply click here to access the page where you can cast your vote.

By the way, “The Volokh Conspiracy” already appears certain to win first place, having established a well deserved huge lead over every other law blog finalist in this popularity contest.

“Book ties enemy combatant to L.A. plot; Ashcroft writes that a man now in prison had a role in planned West Coast strikes; The charge mystifies some”: Today in The Los Angeles Times, Richard A. Serrano has an article that begins, “Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri is the last enemy combatant imprisoned in this country. Yet four years after his arrest, government officials still cannot agree on what threat he posed.”

“Disputed nominee Myers has an Abramoff problem”: Today in The Los Angeles Times, Henry Weinstein has an article that begins, “Five years ago, high-powered Washington lobbyist Jack Abramoff went to a dinner with top officials of the Interior Department, representatives of the White House and leaders of the National Mining Assn. That Georgetown dinner has now come back to haunt one of the guests — William G. Myers III, who was the Interior Department’s top lawyer at the time and for the last three years one of President Bush’s most controversial nominees for a federal judgeship.”

“Race-Based Programs May Face Final Curtain in Supreme Court; Civil rights pioneers fear they’re witnessing the dismantling of a half-century of jurisprudence”: Tony Mauro will have this article (free access) in Monday’s issue of Legal Times.

And today in The St. Petersburg Times, reporter Thomas C. Tobin has an essay entitled “Get ready for school resegregation; Listening to the Supreme Court argue an important schools case, I realized no matter the outcome, some schools here will certainly resegregate.”

“When Winning Feels a Lot Like Losing”: Today in The New York Times, business columnist Gretchen Morgenson has an interesting essay (TimesSelect temporary pass-through link) that begins, “If you’re an investor who has filed an arbitration case against your stockbroker, you would be wise to steel yourself for an irrational and unjust outcome.”

Morgenson’s essay tells the story of an 86-year-old woman who sued Morgan Stanley Dean Witter for $281,729 in investment losses. Morgenson writes that the arbitration “ended in a truly bizarre twist: she was awarded damages of $5,000 but was ordered to pay $10,350 in fees even though an arbitration panel found Morgan Stanley liable for her losses.”

Meanwhile, at “Ideoblog,” Law Professor Larry Ribstein (perhaps the blogosphere’s leading self-anointed Gretchen Morgenson watchdog) has this post about her column today.

“The Judiciary: Your Worst Suspicions Confirmed.” Today in The Washington Post, Pulitzer Prize-winning historian David J. Garrow has this review of Benjamin Wittes’s new book, “Confirmation Wars: Preserving Independent Courts in Angry Times.”

On a related note, David Lat at the “Above the Law” blog on Friday had this post chronicling his recent lunch with Wittes.

“To him, Murrah blast isn’t solved; Lawyer investigating 1995 Oklahoma City attack says loose ends indicate likelihood of neo-Nazi connections”: This article appears today in The Chicago Tribune.

“Victims’ families, friends grapple with law office tragedy”: The Chicago Tribune today contains this article, along with an article headlined “Gunman felt cheated over his invention.”

And The Chicago Sun-Times today contains articles headlined “‘I believe he just snapped’; High-rise gunman became convinced attorney had stolen his idea, family says“; “News of victim’s death ‘like being hit by a thunderbolt’“; “Patent lawyers mourn colleagues’ deaths; ‘It’s just a true tragedy and loss to us all’“; and “‘Are you an attorney?’ ‘No’ may have saved woman.” In addition, Felicia Dechter has an essay entitled “Killing ‘devastating’ to longtime friend; Reporter, victim knew each other for decades.”

“The sesquipedalian septuagenarian: That is, Judge Bruce M. Selya of the First Circuit Court of Appeals, who at 72 continues to write perhaps the wittiest and wordiest opinions in the federal judiciary.” This article appears today in the Ideas section of The Boston Globe.

In March 2004, First Circuit Judge Bruce M. Seyla participated in this blog’s “20 questions for the appellate judge” feature. You can access his interview at this link.

Those in search of the definition of “sesquipedalian” can find the answer here.