“Former Bush lawyer: U.S. did not consider cumulative effects of ‘enhanced interrogation.'” Dan Lamothe has this entry today at the “Checkpoint” blog of The Washington Post.

“Holder won’t force Risen to reveal source”: Josh Gerstein of Politico.com has this report.

And The Associated Press has a report headlined “AP Source: Justice won’t ask Risen about source.”

In Bashman news from Australia: The West Australian has a news update headlined “Masked thugs bash man.”

“DOJ to SCOTUS: Bankruptcy lawyers can bill for defending their fees.” Alison Frankel’s “On the Case” from Thomson Reuters News & Insight has this report today.

“Scalia: Constitution silent on torture.” Mark Sherman of The Associated Press has this report.

Access online today’s Order List of the U.S. Supreme Court: At this link. The Court today granted review in four new cases.

In early news coverage, The Associated Press reports that “Justices to review sentences for young convicts” and “Court will hear dispute over Spider-Man toy.”

Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “Life Sentences for Young Murderers Revisited by U.S. High Court” and “Spider-Man Case at Top Court May Topple Decades-Old Patent Rule.”

Lawrence Hurley of Reuters reports that “U.S. justices to hear Louisiana inmate’s appeal over sentence” and “U.S. Supreme Court to hear dispute over Spider-Man toy royalties.”

And at “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “Court to look again at juvenile life sentences.”

“Illegal Cell Phone Search Invalidates Child Porn Discovery”: Pamela A. MacLean had this post yesterday at her “Trial Insider” blog.

Tim Hull of Courthouse News Service reports that “Child-Porn Plea Rested on Illegal Border Search.”

And at “The Volokh Conspiracy,” Orin Kerr has a post titled “Cell phones exempt from the automobile search exception, Ninth Circuit rules.”

You can access yesterday’s ruling of a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit at this link.

The audio of this week’s U.S. Supreme Court oral arguments is now available online: Via this link.

“This week, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who had delivered the toast to [The New Republic] on its hundredth anniversary, sent a private note to one of the departing editors telling him that she had cancelled her subscription.” So concludes a post titled “Inside the Collapse of The New Republic” that Ryan Lizza has online today at The New Yorker.

“31-year-old associate at big law firm argues before the U.S. Supreme Court”: Eugene Volokh had this post yesterday at “The Volokh Conspiracy.”

“‘Senior status’ lets federal judges keep working — for free”: This article appears in today’s edition of The Boston Globe.

“U.S. corporations winning fight over human rights lawsuits”: Lawrence Hurley of Reuters has a report that begins, “A landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision in 2013 that made it all but impossible to sue foreign companies in U.S. courts for alleged roles in overseas human rights abuses is proving to be a boon for U.S. firms too, court documents show.”

“When Judicial Activists Switched Sides: Deference to elected majorities was a Progressive ideal long before modern conservatives picked up the baton.” Damon Root has this article in the January 2015 issue of Reason magazine.

“Feds in 2-front fight against release of records on CIA ‘torture'”: Josh Gerstein of Politico.com has this blog post today.

“Attorney Faces Rare Sanction from Nation’s Highest Court”: Jacob Gershman had this post yesterday at WSJ.com’s “Law Blog.”

And two days ago at his blog, Josh Blackman had a post titled “The Many Briefs of Sigram Schindler Beteiligungsgesellschaft mbH.”

This matter seems to exemplify a troublesome issue that litigators, and especially appellate litigators, must frequently confront — namely, clients that insist on dictating the contents, and sometimes even the specific language, of appellate court briefs.

Of course, clients control the goals of litigation, and on appeal that ordinarily includes deciding what issues should be raised, although the appellate attorney must stress the benefits of raising as few issues as possible and the serious detriment of pursuing weak issues.

Nevertheless, at the end of the day, clients who expect their attorney to file incomprehensible briefs drafted by the client or to otherwise compromise the attorney’s credibility before the court (to the likely detriment of that attorney’s other clients) need to be educated by the attorney that those are not permissible client demands. And if the client is not willing to refrain from making improper demands on the attorney, then ultimately it is the attorney’s obligation to resign from the representation.