“Legal challenge to chief justice can proceed; A three-judge panel rules that lawyer Keven A. McKenna may dispute Frank J. Williams’ right to hold office, and says it is troubled that the attorney general is representing the state’s top judge”: The Providence (R.I.) Journal today contains an article that begins, “Providence lawyer Keven A. McKenna does have legal standing to proceed with a lawsuit that claims Frank J. Williams is no longer chief justice of the Rhode Island Supreme Court, three state Superior Court judges ruled yesterday.”
On today’s broadcast of NPR‘s “Morning Edition“: The broadcast contained segments entitled “Senators Seek Bipartisan Compromise on Filibusters” and “Washington Divorce Case: Maternity and Marriage.” RealPlayer is required to launch these audio segments.
On the agenda: The agenda for this morning’s executive business meeting of the Senate Judiciary Committee can be viewed at this link. Three nominees to the U.S. Courts of Appeals are on the agenda, and two (Terrence W. Boyle and William H. Pryor, Jr.) are likely to be voted on in committee today.
“Playing Make-Believe: The methodological legacy of Brown v. Board of Education.” Edward Whelan has this essay today at National Review Online. He had a related essay published there yesterday.
“Clarity for the Judiciary”: The Washington Post yesterday contained this editorial.
The text of House Judiciary Committee Chairman F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr.‘s speech Monday at Stanford University, entitled “The Relationship Between the Legislative and Judicial Branches,” can be accessed here (link to speech via “SCOTUSblog“).
“Two Accounts of a Dark Act Collide at Parole Hearing; Jeffrey MacDonald, and those who angrily reject his claim that he did not kill his family in 1970, learn that he’s unlikely to win early freedom”: This article appears today in The Los Angeles Times.
The Charlotte Observer reported yesterday that “MacDonald’s bid for parole hits roadblock; Examiners recommend no freedom for man who killed family in ’70,” while on Tuesday that newspaper reported that “Infamous N.C. killer gets chance at parole.”
And on Monday, The Washington Post contained an article headlined “Asking for Freedom but Not for Forgiveness; Physician Jeffrey MacDonald Seeks Parole While Insisting He Didn’t Kill His Wife and Daughters.”
“N.C. Judge Has Spent 15 Years as A Nominee; Judge Derailed By Partisan Issues”: Charles Lane has this article today in The Washington Post.
The Cincinnati Enquirer today contains an article headlined “Federal bench vacancies wait; 6th Circuit, which serves this area, on group’s ’emergency’ list.”
The Washington Times contains articles headlined “Parties debate filibuster history” and “GOP pulls evenin PR battle over nominees.”
The Republican of Springfield, Massachusetts reports that “Kennedy defends right to block Senate action.”
The Rocky Mountain News reports that “Political group says it didn’t back Salazar.”
In commentary, The Washington Post contains an editorial entitled “The Nelson Option” and an op-ed by Charles McC. Mathias entitled “A Bad Option to Take.”
The Washington Times contains an editorial entitled “Unprecedented obstructionism.”
The Indianapolis Star contains an editorial entitled “Reach for a truce, not a lethal weapon; Put down the nuclear trigger, Sen. Frist, and back away slowly.”
In The New York Daily News, Richard Cohen has an op-ed entitled “The Dems need Capra; These times cry out for filibustering king of lost causes, Mr. Smith.”
Online at The Weekly Standard, Hugh Hewitt has an essay entitled “A Selective Adherence to Tradition: Why is it that when it comes to the judiciary, some traditions matter more than others?”
In The Rocky Mount Telegram, Ray Watters has an op-ed entitled “Trying to bust the filibuster.”
Yesterday in The Hill, David Hill had an op-ed entitled “Filibuster polls bias empty heads.”
And today in The Daily Aztec, Paul A. Escajadillo has an essay entitled “Filibuster foils Constitution.”
