“Five From the 5th Circuit Mentioned for High Court; Southern Appeals Bench Known for Conservatism”: Tuesday’s issue of The Washington Post will contain this article, along with an article headlined “Bush Plans Interviews With Court Candidates; President Wants Confirmation by October.”
Tuesday’s issue of The New York Times will report that “Announcement of Supreme Court Nominee May Be Soon.”
And Tuesday in The Chicago Tribune, Jan Crawford Greenburg will report that “Advisers want Bush to consider conservative men for court.”
“Executed Man May Be Cleared in New Inquiry”: This article will appear Tuesday in The New York Times.
Who will President Bush nominate to the U.S. Supreme Court? I’m sticking with my earlier prediction of Fifth Circuit Judge Edith H. Jones, and I further predict that she will attain U.S. Senate confirmation.
No one can doubt Judge Jones’s solid conservative credentials. Her colleague on the Fifth Circuit, Judge Edith Brown Clement, may not be as reliably conservative (see, for example, this ruling from July 2004). And newly confirmed Fifth Circuit Judge Priscilla R. Owen has no track record as a judge in criminal cases, because the Supreme Court of Texas doesn’t have appellate jurisdiction in criminal cases.
Available online from law.com: An article reports that “‘Sports Illustrated’ Ruling Pressures Media Attorneys.”
In other news, “11th Circuit Still Cool to ‘Booker.’”
And in news from Pennsylvania, “Though Child Is in India, Support Payments Must Follow U.S. Guidelines.”
“Rehnquist decision raises questions on judges, age”: Michael Doyle of McClatchy Newspapers provides this report.
The Associated Press is reporting from California: David Kravets reports, with regard to Michael A. Newdow’s latest lawsuit, that “Judge narrows Pledge of Allegiance case to focus on schools.”
And an article headlined “Calif. Court: Work Sex Can Be Harassment” reports on this unanimous ruling that the Supreme Court of California issued today.
“Conservatives are told it will not be Gonzales”: This article will appear in Tuesday’s edition of The Hill.
Reuters reports that “Bush to meet with some Supreme Court candidates.”
The Associated Press reports that “Two Michigan Supreme Court justices mentioned for U.S. high court.”
The Knight Ridder Newspapers report that “Supreme Court market lets you put your money where your hunch is.”
And online at The New Republic, Alexander Barnes Dryer has an essay entitled “Judge Not: Bush recently said he might appoint a non-judge; A guide to whom he may have been talking about.”
“Supreme Court Nominees & Confirmation”: That was the title of this past Saturday’s broadcast of C-SPAN‘s “America & the Courts.” You can view the broadcast online by clicking here (RealPlayer required).
“Debate to open Sullivan hearing; Case stirs up issue of double jeopardy after suit was thrown out of federal court in 1992”: The Atlanta Journal-Constitution today contains an article that begins, “Georgia’s Supreme Court will hear arguments this morning that could determine whether Fulton County can pursue a death penalty trial in a nationally known murder for hire.”
“Stop Judges Tripping on Corporate Dollar”: Timothy J. Dowling, chief counsel of Community Rights Counsel, has this op-ed today in Legal Times.
“Trials for Two Gitmo Suspects to Resume”: The Associated Press provides this report. And the Department of Defense today issued a news release entitled “Military Commissions to Resume.”
“Government appeals on tobacco remedy”: Lyle Denniston has this report at “SCOTUSblog,” which has also posted the federal government’s cert. petition and appendix.
In other coverage, The Associated Press reports that “U.S. Again Seeks $280B in Tobacco Profits,” while Reuters reports that “U.S. seeks reversal of tobacco sanction ruling.”
“Appeals Court to Consider Padilla Case; Ruling Has Vast Implications on Fight Against Terrorism”: The Washington Post provides this news update previewing tomorrow’s oral argument before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
And in tenuously related news, The Miami Herald today contains an article headlined “Detention method defended; Prosecutors took a tough stand as two terrorism suspects held in federal detention in Miami asked a judge to address complaints of poor treatment by prison officials.”
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit holds that survivors of victims killed by allegedly racist co-worker at Mississippi-based Lockheed plant are limited under state law to pursuing the remedies provided under the Mississippi Workers’ Compensation Act: The Fifth Circuit’s ruling, dated last Thursday but posted online today, can be accessed at this link.
Earlier this year, the ABC News program “Primetime Live” reported on the shootings and posted online a report headlined “Lockheed Workplace Murders Targeted Blacks; Management Knew Shooter’s Racist Views and Previous Threats.” Back in July 2003, USA Today reported that “Gunman ‘just hated a lot of people.’” And earlier this month, The Meridian Star published an article headlined “Family members stay strong two years after Lockheed shootings.”
To deter forgery, the Justice Antonin Scalia bobblehead doll gift certificates that The Green Bag is issuing are embossed with the publication’s official seal: My certificate arrived in today’s mail, as did the pre-release gally proof of Jeffrey Lord’s new book “The Borking Rebellion.”
The wire services are reporting: The Associated Press reports that “Bush Wants New Justice in Place by Oct.”
And Reuters reports that “Rumsfeld vows speedy action on Guantanamo trials.”
Unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit upholds the validity of a blanket waiver of Fourth Amendment rights as a condition of probation: Today’s opinion, by Circuit Judge Richard A. Posner, can be accessed here.
President Bush addresses a reporter’s question about the process to find a nominee to replace Justice Sandra Day O’Connor: The following transcript excerpt is from a White House press availability that wrapped-up within the past hour:
Q Thank you, Mr. President. We understand you are now close to a decision on a Supreme Court nominee.
THE PRESIDENT: Really? (Laughter.) It’s amazing how Washington works, Mr. Prime Minister. (Laughter.)
Q Have you narrowed down the list and met with finalists? Will you now share the list with Senate leaders to avoid a confirmation battle, as Democrats have proposed?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, thank you for telling me where I am in the process. I appreciate that. We’ve consulted with the Senate. We will continue to consult with the Senate. I, of course, am the person that picks the nominee, and they get to decide whether or not the nominee gets confirmed. That’s the way it has worked in the past. That’s the way it’s going to work in this administration.
And of course I’m reviewing a different candidate. I’m reviewing their curriculum vitae, as well as their findings. I will sit down with some and talk to them face-to-face, those who I have not known already. You know, we’ve got some people that — perhaps in contention that I’ve already spent time with, that I know; in other words, I’m familiar with some of the people that are being speculated about in the press. And so I don’t need to interview those. But of course I’m going to take a very thorough approach.
What they’re referring to is a Supreme Court vacancy. And this is a really important decision. And I’m going to take my time and I will be thorough and deliberate. But make no mistake, we have heard a lot of suggestions from members of the United States Senate — a lot. It turns out, many of the senators have got strong opinions one way or the other. And of course we’re listening to them.
But my desire, Adam, is to get this process moving so that someone will be confirmed, whoever he or she is, will be confirmed by October. And if that’s the backstop, we’re working back to try to accommodate the Senate and their desire. Part of the consultation was to ask the senators, what’s it take to get somebody in place by the October session?
And thank you for your question, and thank you for telling me how close I am to — or at least indicating what others think. (Laughter.)
You can access the full transcript at this link.
“The next justice: Seeking the unpredictable.” This editorial appears today in The Minneapolis Star Tribune.
“The Case for Impeaching the Chief Justice”: Professor Mark Graber has this possibly facetious post at the “Balkinization” blog.
“The Law and Economics of Gay Marriage”: “The Becker-Posner Blog” offers posts here and here.
Decalogue blog: The Capital-Journal of Topeka, Kansas today contains an article headlined “Junction City to keep monument; Commission interprets Supreme Court ruling to mean ‘outside is OK; inside, not OK.’”
The ABA’s Law Practice magazine looks “Behind the Blogs”: That’s the title of the cover story package found in the July/August 2005 issue of the magazine. Among the articles is one by Sarah Kellogg headlined “It’s Not Your Father’s Web Site: Lawyers in the Blogosphere.”
“Medical Claims From 9/11 Are Assigned to Single Court”: The New York Times today contains this article reporting on last Thursday’s ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
“Attorneys to open defense in bribery trial; Lawyers for justice, three others expected to try to explain transactions”: The Clarion-Ledger of Jackson, Mississippi today contains an article that begins, “Defense attorneys in a federal bribery trial of a state Supreme Court justice and three others are preparing to deconstruct a complex web of circumstantial evidence prosecutors have used to allege the scheme”
“For prosecutor, CIA leak case comes down to matter of law”: Yesterday’s issue of The Baltimore Sun contained this article.
“Eminent domain ruling chills property owners; Fear of land grabs unites odd coalition”: This article appears today in The San Francisco Chronicle.
The Chicago Tribune today contains an article headlined “Connecticut case lit fires of rage; A struggling New London won Supreme Court backing for a city development plan using eminent domain; Officials got death threats.”
The Connecticut Post reports that “Congress critical, state lawmakers quiet on ruling; State lawmakers stay quiet on property decision.”
The Houston Chronicle reports that “House approves limits on eminent domain use.”
The Austin American-Statesman reports that “Lawmaker seeks to protect cousin’s eatery; Limits on UT added to eminent domain proposal.”
The Roanoke Times contains an article headlined “Private — keep off: aftershocks of Kelo v. City of New London; Government participation in private property matters can be viewed as meddling in this mostly rural portion of the state.”
The St. Petersburg Times reports that “Government property seizure poses knotty issues; Daytona Beach wants to condemn property deemed blighted to make way for a $120-million private development.”
Meanwhile, in commentary, The South Florida Sun-Sentinel contains an op-ed by Valerie A. Fernandez entitled “‘Kelo’ can happen here, too.”
In The Washington Times, Donald Lambro has an op-ed entitled “Home, seized home.”
And yesterday, The Day of New London, Connecticut contained an op-ed by Greg Stone entitled “Fiery Rhetoric, Foggy Facts.”
“Hispanics split on court opening”: The Fort Worth Star-Telegram contains this article today.
“Roy Moore for Supreme Court”: This editorial appeared yesterday in The Birmingham News.
“Moral Capital and the Courts: The Left is destroying traditional morality.” U.S. Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA) has this essay today at National Review Online.
“Five Reasons Not to Put Gonzales On the Court”: Stuart Taylor Jr. has this essay in today’s issue of National Journal.
“What Roe v. Wade Should Have Said”: Law Professor Jack M. Balkin has this blog post announcing the publication of his new book.
“For New Chief, a New Approach to Homeland Security”: The New York Times contains this article today.
“Sexy reading can put a felon in jail; A sex offender went to jail for reading Maxim magazine after probation officers decided that it was ‘sexually stimulating’ — the latest sign of the state’s get-tough policy toward people on probation”: This article appeared yesterday in The Miami Herald.
“An Attack on the Courts”: This editorial appears today in The Washington Post.
And yesterday in The San Francisco Chronicle, columnist Debra J. Saunders had an op-ed entitled “The new inquisitor.”
