Saturday, December 31, 2011
Happy New Year! Wishing "How Appealing" readers all the best in 2012. Believe it or not, this blog will turn ten years old on May 6, 2012.
Posted at 07:30 PM by Howard Bashman
"Roberts defends Supreme Court colleagues on recusal issue": Robert Barnes of The Washington Post has this news update.
David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times has a blog post titled "Chief Justice Roberts says high court not exempt from ethics rules."
Joan Biskupic of USA Today has a news update headlined "Chief Justice defends Supreme Court's recusal policy."
Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal has a news update headlined "Chief Justice Responds to Recusal Calls in Health-Care Case." You can freely access the full text of the article via Google News.
Bill Mears of CNN.com reports that "Chief justice addresses ethics and recusal questions in year-end report."
Ariane de Vogue of ABC News has a blog post titled "Chief Justice Roberts Responds to Judicial Ethics Critics."
The Associated Press reports that "Chief justice defends court's impartiality."
Seth Stern of Bloomberg News reports that "U.S. Chief Justice Offers Confidence in Recusals."
James Vicini of Reuters reports that "Roberts defends justices on healthcare recusal issue."
At "The BLT: The Blog of Legal Times," Tony Mauro has a post titled "In Annual Report, Roberts Defends Supreme Court Ethics Procedures."
And at "SCOTUSblog," Lyle Denniston has a post titled "A defense of Justices' ethics."
"Michigan Supreme Court orders Rosa Parks estate returned to longtime friend, institute": David Ashenfelter has this article today in The Detroit Free Press.
Posted at 02:33 PM by Howard Bashman
"Court wisely draws a line of privacy; Owner goes too far when he installed a camera": Today's edition of The Des Moines Register contains an editorial that begins, "If a tree falls in the forest when no one is present, does it make a sound? If a hidden camera is installed in a bathroom but isn't used, has anyone's privacy been invaded? The first question is a matter of philosophy or physics, the second is a matter of law. The Iowa Supreme Court's answer is yes, it is possible to invade someone's privacy by installing a camera in a bathroom even if there is no evidence it was used."