“US judge set to lose home under law he brought in”: Sunday’s edition of The Telegraph (UK) contains an article that begins, “A US Supreme Court Judge could lose his country farmhouse thanks to a controversial law which he himself voted to bring in. Furious protesters are plotting to seize David Souter’s $150,000 (£86,400) 19th century home and turn it into a hotel after he voted to give towns the legal right to make compulsory purchases.”

In the July 18, 2005 issue of U.S. News & World Report: An article is headlined “Supreme fight to the finish; Big bucks, bad blood–a court battle like no other.”

In related commentary, Michael Barone has an essay entitled “Our House of Lords.” And John Leo has an essay entitled “A Judge With No Agenda.”

An article reports that “A murky case takes a bizarre twist; A Times reporter goes to jail to protect a source.”

And an article headlined “A New Sheriff in Town” begins, “Mike Chertoff is no stranger to big challenges–and he doesn’t mind playing the villain.”

On today’s broadcast of NPR‘s “Weekend Edition – Saturday“: The broadcast contained segments entitled “‘Original Meaning’ and the Next Supreme Court Justice” and “N.C. Judge Forbids Quran in Witness Swearing In.” RealPlayer is required to launch these audio clips.

Also in Sunday’s edition of The New York Times: In the Week in Review section, Linda Greenhouse will have an article headlined “Under the Microscope Longer Than Most.” And John M. Broder will have an article headlined “Have a Seat, Your Honor (Presidents Wish It Were That Easy).”

Tomorrow’s newspaper will also contain an article headlined “Democrats Seek Greater Voice in Nomination, Telling Bush It Would Ease Process.”

“Reid: Pick Nominee in Earl Warren Mold.” The Associated Press provides this report. And you can access online the “Text of Sen. Reid’s Democratic radio address” delivered today.

“Democrats seek court nominee with ‘big heart'”: Thomas Ferraro of Reuters provides this report.

“In New Court, Roe May Stand, So Foes Look to Limit Its Scope”: Robin Toner and Adam Liptak will have this article Sunday in The New York Times.

“Eminent Disdain”: In today’s edition of The New York Times, Paul Bass and Douglas W. Rae have an op-ed that begins, “With all the debate over who will replace Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, one of the most shocking Supreme Court decisions in recent history has disappeared from the headlines.”

The Los Angeles Times is reporting: Today’s newspaper contains articles headlined:

• “U.S. Sued on Anti-Gay Military Policy; A dozen homosexual veterans, discharged from duty, seek to overturn ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ directive and be reinstated“;
• “Mystery Thickens in Secret Source Case; After two years, more questions than answers have emerged on who named a CIA agent and the role the White House may have played“; and
• “Christian Network Asks Court for KOCE-TV; Daystar says its offer for Channel 50 was highest; Judges ruled that O.C. college had botched the sale and must seek new bids or keep the station.”

“Newspaper Withholding Two Articles After Jailing”: The New York Times today contains an article that begins, “The editor of The Cleveland Plain Dealer said last night that the newspaper, acting on the advice of its lawyers, was withholding publication of two major investigative articles because they were based on illegally leaked documents and could lead to penalties against the paper and the jailing of reporters.”

“Blogs seen as powerful new tool in U.S. court fight”: Reuters provides this report.

“Appeals Court Voids Ban on ‘Partial Birth’ Abortions”: This article appears today in The New York Times.

The Lincoln Journal Star today contains an article headlined “Appeals court: Abortion ban unconstitutional.”

And The St. Louis Post-Dispatch reports that “Ruling may threaten Missouri abortion law.”

I first noted yesterday’s ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in a post you can access here.

“Teacher, student sex law expanded; ‘French-kissing’ ruled illegal”: The Kansas City Star today contains an article that begins, “A recent Kansas law that makes sex illegal between a teacher and student older than 16 applies even if they only engage in ‘French-kissing.’ The ruling by the Kansas Court of Appeals Friday was the first time the issue has been addressed on appeal, spurred in part by two Johnson County cases involving teachers and students older than the age of consent.”

You can access yesterday’s ruling of the Court of Appeals of Kansas at this link. The kissing at issue in the case occurred between a female teacher and a female student.

Available online from law.com: Articles are headlined “Who Do Conservatives Want for the High Court?” and “DOJ’s Needs May Torpedo Gonzales as High Court Contender.”

In other news, “Loss Causation Pleadings Standard in 2nd Circuit Defined.”

And in news from Florida, “Judge Skips Criminal Cases as Feds Target His Secretary.”

“Web site reveals justices’ private sides”: Media General News Service provides this report.