“Constitutional Conversation with Justices Breyer, O’Connor and Scalia, moderated by ‘Meet the Press’ host Tim Russert”: This program — sponsored by the National Constitution Center, The Aspen Institute, and the National Archives and Records Administration — is scheduled to get underway at 7 p.m. this evening at the National Archives in Washington, DC. For those unable to attend in person, C-SPAN3 is scheduled to broadcast the event live online. And once C-SPAN makes the video available online, on demand, I’ll be sure to post a link here.
“Senate Panel Set to OK 2 Bush Nominees”: Jesse J. Holland of The Associated Press provides this report.
On today’s broadcast of NPR’s “Morning Edition”: The broadcast contained segments entitled “Judicial Nominations Could Trigger Filibuster Fight” (featuring Nina Totenberg) and “Jeffords Decides Not to Seek Fourth Term.” RealPlayer is required to launch these audio segments.
“Senator Frist and Representative DeLay’s Claims of Supreme Court Judicial Activism and Anti-Religion Bias: Why They Aren’t Persuasive.” FindLaw commentator Marci Hamilton has this essay today.
Bob Egelko is reporting: Today in The San Francisco Chronicle, he has an article headlined “State justices refuse PETA a hearing on the life of cows” that begins, “Whether the cows in a state milk board’s ads are really happy is apparently none of the California courts’ business.” And in other news, “Cough syrup no defense; Supreme Court upholds loss of license of girl, 16.”
The agenda for this morning’s executive business meeting of the Senate Judiciary Committee can be accessed here: Four nominees to the U.S. Courts of Appeals are on the agenda, and three are likely to be voted out of committee today.
“Schumer Blasts Proposed Hearings On Judges’ Conduct”: Luiza Ch. Savage has this article today in The New York Sun.
“Senate Scrap Over Judges Is Frist’s Fight; The majority leader’s presidential aspirations may influence action on a filibuster rule change”: The Los Angeles Times contains this article today.
The Boston Globe reports today that “Ad wars mount as Republicans ready ban on Senate filibusters.”
The St. Louis Post-Dispatch reports that “Obama is reluctant to defend filibuster in judicial battle.”
The Arkansas Democrat-Gazette reports that “Pryor sees rash use of religion by groups; Swats at filibusters disappoint, he says.”
The Times-Picayune reports that “GOP Senate freshmen push to end judicial filibusters; Democratic minority blocked Bush’s picks.”
The Denver Post reports that “Sen. Salazar, Focus spar over judicial nominations.”
The Rocky Mountain News reports that “Salazar slams Focus; Senator calls group’s political tactics over judges ‘un-Christian.’”
The Island Packet contains an article headlined “DeMint: GOP close to filibuster change.”
In commentary, The Philadelphia Daily News today contains an editorial entitled “Will Specter save the GOP from itself? Senator can keep the party from blowing itself up over the filibuster.”
The Allentown (Pa.) Morning Call contains an editorial entitled “Spirit of Senate bipartisanship would be obliterated with filibuster rule change.”
In The Washington Post, columnist David S. Broder has an op-ed entitled “The Appeal of A Court Fight.”
In The New York Times, columnist David Brooks has an op-ed entitled “Roe’s Birth, and Death.”
In The Chicago Tribune, columnist Steve Chapman has an op-ed entitled “The Republicans’ new perspective on the filibuster.”
In The Houston Chronicle, columnist Cragg Hines has an op-ed entitled “For Owen rerun, Specter takes up role of Bush shill.”
In The Denver Post, columnist David Harsanyi has an op-ed entitled “Sen. Salazar takes judicial turn.”
In The Chicago Sun-Times, columnist Robert Novak has an op-ed enititled “Liberals once sang different tune on filibusters.”
In The Louisville Courier-Journal, Joseph Phelps has an op-ed entitled “A tale of two churches.”
At Townhall.com, columnist Cal Thomas has an essay entitled “Religious ‘intolerance’ cuts both ways.”
And today in The Daily Texan, Kevin Jones has an op-ed entitled “Far right alienates moderate Christians.”
Finally for now, yesterday the organization People For the American Way issued both a news release entitled “Boyle Testimony Confirms Opponents’ Fears; PFAW Analysis of Judiciary Committee Hearing Shows Severe Lack of Credibility and Radical Record Make Boyle Unfit to Serve on Fourth Circuit” and a related report entitled “Committee Hearing Reinforces Case that Terrence Boyle is Unfit for Promotion to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.”
“Biotech patents an issue for court; Justices hear arguments involving S.D. entities”: This article appears today in The San Diego Union-Tribune.
Lyle Denniston is reporting online at “SCOTUSblog”: Today, he has posts titled “Judge: Moussaoui competent to plead guilty“; “Huge tobacco case seems Court-bound“; and “Analysis: Reversal coming in patent case?”
“Santorum reads nuke polls, applies the brakes”: Thursday’s edition of The Hill will contain an article that begins, “Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.), a leading advocate of the ‘nuclear option’ to end the Democrats’ filibuster of judicial nominees, is privately arguing for a delay in the face of adverse internal party polls.”
The McClatchy Newspapers report that “Congressional showdown over judicial nominees could begin Thursday.”
Thursday’s edition of The Dallas Morning News will report that “Filibuster issue leads to rallies; Right, left aim to seize moral ground in dispute on judicial nominations.”
Thursday’s edition of Financial Times contains an article headlined “Republican politicking muddies fight on judicial posts” and an editorial entitled “Trouble on the Hill.”
From South Dakota, The Associated Press reports that “U.S. Senate battle over rules could risk state highway money.”
The Jewish Week reports that “Judicial Wars Turning Uglier: With showdown over nominees nearing, conservatives’ message that ‘religion is under attack’ is rankling Jewish leaders and Democrats.”
The Scripps Howard News Service reports that “Salazar calls tactics of Focus on the Family ‘un-Christian.’”
Washington Square News reports that “Filibusters topic of debate at law school.” Participating in the debate were Nan Aron and Bruce Fein, while Adam Cohen of The New York Times Editorial Board served as moderator.
In commentary, The Montgomery Advertiser today contains an editorial entitled “Playing ‘religion card’ misguided tactic.”
The Pitt News today contains an editorial entitled “Faith-based anti-filibuster campaign a bust.”
The Chattanooga Times Free Press contains an editorial entitled “Bill Frist’s demagoguery.”
The Tennessean yesterday contained an editorial entitled “Dangerous mix of faith into filibuster debate.”
The News Tribune of Tacoma, Washington yesterday contained an editorial entitled “GOP’s Frist should shun dirty attack on judiciary.”
Last Friday, The Peoria Journal Star contained an editorial entitled “Wrong to discard Senate filibuster.”
Today in The New York Observer, columnist Joe Conason has an essay entitled “Frist and allies use piety for profit; Republicans morph opposition of judicial nominees into ‘war on people of faith.’”
Columnist James Lileks has an essay entitled “This Time, McCain Doesn’t Get a Pass.”
Today in The Christian Science Monitor, Jonathan Zimmerman has an op-ed entitled “Losing our religion.”
In the current issue of The Forward, Rabbi Arthur Waskow has an essay entitled “Thou Shalt Not Revile the Judges.”
Yesterday in The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, columnist Tony Norman had an op-ed entitled “Christians in lion’s clothing.”
Finally for now, James Ridgeway’s current “Mondo Washington” column online at The Village Voice is entitled “The GOP’s Fright Wing: DeLay and Frist light the torches for a crusade against ‘activist’ judges.”
“Finally, Miller and Cooper Turn to the Supreme Court”: Editor & Publisher offers this report today.
“GOP Frets Over Public’s Economic Worries”: Thursday’s edition of The Washington Post will contain a front page news analysis piece that begins, “Inflation and interest rates are rising, stock values have plunged, a tank of gas induces sticker shock, and for nearly a year, wages have failed to keep up with the cost of living. Yet in Washington, the political class has been consumed with the death of a brain-damaged woman in Florida, the ethics of the House majority leader, and the fate of the Senate filibuster.”
“2 Winona High students at center of hot-button issue”: Thursday’s edition of The Minneapolis Star Tribune will contain an article that begins, “Two Winona High School students have found themselves in hot water with school officials. Why? Because after Carrie Rethlefsen attended a performance of the play ‘The Vagina Monologues’ last month, she and Emily Nixon wore buttons to school that read: ‘I [heart] My Vagina.'”
In Thursday’s edition of The New York Times: Neil A. Lewis will have an article headlined “For Republicans, 2 Women Are Exhibits A and B in Battle on Judicial Appointments.”
In other news, “Pentagon Considers Changing The Legal Definition of Sodomy.”
An article will report that “Judge Rules 9/11 Defendant Is Competent to Plead Guilty.”
And finally for now, “Jeffords to Leave the Senate, Setting Off Vermont Scramble.”
Also available online from law.com: In addition to Tony Mauro’s article noted in the post immediately below this one, the following law.com articles are also available online tonight.
An article reports that “Ex-Gulf War POWs Plead Their Case to Supreme Court; Former hostages say they should have right to sue Iraq for torture sustained during Persian Gulf War.”
Jonathan Ringel has a very interesting article headlined “11th Circuit Judge Stands Ground on Sentencing Rules; Judge Edward E. Carnes fights criticism from colleagues, 7th Circuit.”
Jeff Chorney reports that “Deputy AG Comey to Step Down.”
And in news from California, “Ex-Partners Sue Townsend for Cut of Fees.”
“Two High Court Justices Un-Recuse From Key Patent Case”: Tony Mauro has this interesting essay online at law.com.
Someone identified as “a judge” uses the internet to defend Tom DeLay’s comments condemning judges for using the internet: Something about this anonymous email posted at “The Corner” strikes me as fishy. Maybe it’s the anonymous emailer’s use of “appellant judges” where he or she clearly means “appellate judges”?
“Republicans pushing swift confirmation for Pryor”: The Associated Press provides this report.
“Man arrested for alleged threats against B’klyn federal judge”: This article appears today in New York Newsday.
News updates available online from The Los Angeles Times: An article reports that “Moussaoui Guilty Plea to Be OKd.”
In other news, “Jeffords Won’t Seek Re-Election to Senate.”
And in local news, “L.A. Gang Member Sentenced to Die; Defendant tells judge they would meet ‘in hell’; Judge says he killed ‘for sport.’”
“7th Circuit makes linking difficult! And worse!” Marcia Oddi has this post today at “The Indiana Law Blog.”
“Judge Brotman looks back on decades of serving V.I. through storm and change”: This article appeared last Thursday in The Virgin Islands Daily News.
“Sen. Kennedy reaches out to the netroots”: The blog “Blue Mass. Group” offers this “nuclear option”-related post.
Available online from The Associated Press: Hope Yen reports that “High Court Skeptical on Drug Patent Ruling.”
In other news, “Court Closes Arguments in FBI Case.”
And an article reports that “Moussaoui Could Face the Death Penalty.”
“Supreme Court Reins In Suits By Shareholders”: Jess Bravin has this article (pass-through link) today in The Wall Street Journal.
Access online the agenda for tomorrow morning’s executive business meeting of the Senate Judiciary Committee: The agenda can be accessed here. You will note that Eleventh Circuit Judge William H. Pryor, Jr. appears on this week’s agenda, meaning that if he is not voted out of committee tomorrow, he will be due to be voted out of committee at the next executive business meeting after tomorrow’s.
“Nuclear option meltdown”: T. Bevan has this post today at the RealClearPolitics.com “Commentary” blog.
“Frist’s Folly: The Senate filibuster is inherently conservative; That’s why we need it.” Jacob Weisberg today has this essay online at Slate.
Access online the Solicitor General’s reply brief in the Solomon Amendment case: The reply brief is now available at this link. The other materials filed with the U.S. Supreme Court can be accessed via this post of mine from yesterday. The case is scheduled to be conferenced on April 29, 2005, and thus we may learn whether review has been granted as early as Monday, May 2, 2005. I continue to believe that the Supreme Court is very likely to accept this case for review.
“Canada Approves Cannabis Spray; The drug will be used to treat pain from multiple sclerosis; Medicinal marijuana advocates see decision as furthering their cause in the U.S.” This article appears today in The Los Angeles Times.
“Sen. Jeffords Won’t Seek Re-Election”: The Associated Press reports here that “Sen. Jim Jeffords, an independent who triggered one of the most dramatic upheavals in U.S. Senate history when he quit the GOP four years ago, announced Wednesday he would retire at the end of his term next year, citing his and his wife’s health.”
An international law ruling that Tom DeLay might applaud: Reuters has a report headlined “Italian Court Rules Woman’s Feeding Tube Must Stay” that begins, “Italy’s Supreme Court on Wednesday rejected a man’s appeal to remove a feeding tube keeping his daughter alive, weeks after a bitter row over brain-damaged Terri Schiavo divided the United States.”
Hear Tom DeLay on the internet discussing international law: You can listen to his interview yesterday on Tony Snow’s Fox News Radio program by clicking here (Windows Media Player). Congressman DeLay begins discussing the judiciary at approximately 10 minutes and 30 seconds into the broadcast. Delay’s discussion of Supreme Court Justice Anthony M. Kennedy runs from 11:40 to 12:00. (Thanks to “Qroncy” for the direct link to the audio.)
“The case is a symphony of frivolousness.” So writes Seventh Circuit Judge Richard A. Posner, on behalf of a unanimous three-judge panel, in a must-read attorney sanction opinion issued today.
On a somewhat unrelated note, the Seventh Circuit recently changed the way that its opinions are made available over the internet. Compare the link that I have provided to the opinion in the preceding paragraph of this post to the link that appears in your web browser’s window once the file opens. I’d be curious to hear from any readers who can explain why a court would have its opinions open at what appear to be “temporary” link addresses that will prove useless to anyone who later wants to revisit the decisions. Or am I simply ignorant about what’s going on here?
