“Their Will Be Done: How the Supreme Court sows moral anarchy.” OpinionJournal today provides access to this recent Wall Street Journal op-ed by Robert H. Bork.

And on Friday, The Los Angeles Times published an op-ed by Jonathan Chait entitled “Borking Bork Worked Out OK; It turns out he was a right-wing nut.”

“Georgetown Univ. Law Center Panel on Justice O’Connor Legacy”: Via C-SPAN, you can access online by clicking here (RealPlayer required) the video of this event, which occurred this past Thursday in Washington, DC.

And now that people are no longer asking “who is Marty Lederman,” by watching this video beginning at 57 minutes and 20 seconds into the broadcast you can obtain the answer to the question “what does Marty Lederman look like?”

“Seeking a New Supreme Court Justice”: This segment (RealPlayer required) appeared on today’s broadcast of NPR‘s “Weekend Edition – Sunday.”

“Is Rehnquist Next?” CBS News provides this report.

“Supreme Court appointee will shape America long after Bush is gone”: This article appears in Monday’s issue of The Australian.

“Ideology Main Concern in Replacing O’Connor”: FOXNews.com provides this report.

The Associated Press is reporting: Jesse J. Holland has a report headlined “Will Senate Face Multiple Court Debates?”

And in related news, “Bush’s Judges Already Making Their Mark.”

“Lawmaker prods court, raises brows; Demands longer term in Chicago drug case”: The Chicago Tribune today contains an article that begins:

In an extraordinary move, the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee privately demanded last month that the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago change its decision in a narcotics case because he didn’t believe a drug courier got a harsh enough prison term.

Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.), in a five-page letter dated June 23 to Chief Judge Joel Flaum, asserted that a June 16 decision by a three-judge appeals court panel was wrong.

He demanded “a prompt response” as to what steps Flaum would take “to rectify the panel’s actions” in a case where a drug courier in a Chicago police corruption case received a 97-month prison sentence instead of the at least 120 months required by a drug-conspiracy statute.

You can access the four-page, unanimous ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit at this link, and an order amending opinion is available here. Circuit Judge Frank H. Easterbrook wrote the opinion. The blog “Sentencing Law and Policy” discusses the matter further here.

“How a new justice could change the court; If O’Connor’s successor disagrees with any of her positions, precedents decided by a 5-to-4 majority could be vulnerable”: Warren Richey will have this article Monday in The Christian Science Monitor.

Philadelphia Phillies 5, Washington Nationals 4 (12 innings): My son and I spent the afternoon at Citizens Bank Park, where the hometown Phillies in extra innings beat the National League East leading Nationals (wraps and box score available here). The Phillie Phanatic had to leave the game early to depart for Detroit, where he will be joining three Phillies players at the All Star Game.

“Polarized Panel Awaits High Court Nominee”: This front page article appears today in The Washington Post, which also contains an article headlined “O’Connor’s Exit Energizes Va. Abortion Debate.”

The Los Angeles Times today contains a news analysis headlined “Bush Caught in GOP Riptide Over High Court; Choosing a nominee, or two, who will satisfy competing interests may prove to be a struggle” and an article headlined “Ready, Set Legal Activists Await Bush’s Go; Groups on the right and the left are researching every name rumored as a high court nominee, eager to storm the 24-hour news cycle.”

The Boston Globe contains articles headlined “Abortion rulings difficult to gauge; Cases don’t turn on right to privacy” and “Should justices be elected?”

Newsday contains an article headlined “Talks on filling O’Connor seat; Meeting this week between president and Senate leaders comes amid rumors that Rehnquist will retire.”

The Sacramento Bee reports that “O’Connor’s moral compass rooted in West; With justice’s retirement, the Supreme Court loses a unique regional perspective.”

The July 18, 2005 issue of Newsweek magazine contains an article headlined “The Supreme Sales Team: As rumors fly about the possibility of more resignations, the White House eyes its right flank.”

The Kansas City Star reports that “Executive powers a stealth issue in debate over high court nominee.”

The Hearst Newspapers report that “‘Rehnquist revolution’ winds down; States’ rights lost some ground during justices’ most recent term.”

The Philadelphia Inquirer reports that “Specter to star in high-wire act for court debate.”

The Advocate of Baton Rouge, Louisiana reports that “Landrieu key in Justice selection.”

And The Brownsville Herald reports that “O’Connor’s resignation prompts hope for Hispanic justice.”

In commentary, The Boston Globe contains an editorial entitled “Privacy at stake,” while columnist Ellen Goodman has an op-ed entitled “‘Mother’ of all justices.”

The Washington Times contains an editorial entitled “Republicans and the Supremes.”

In The Washington Post, columnist George F. Will has an op-ed entitled “The Case For Justice Wilkinson,” while Law Professor Cass R. Sunstein has an op-ed entitled “Role Reversal and the High Court.”

In The Houston Chronicle, columnist Cragg Hines has an op-ed entitled “Is Gonzales prospect real or a feint as Bush decides?” And Lou Cannon has an op-ed entitled “Nominations the Reagan way: Use politics, not ideology to choose nominees.”

In The Salt Lake Tribune, Pat Shea has an op-ed entitled “The confirmation process: Do we row or wade?”

And finally for now, in The Amarillo Globe-News, John Kanelis has an op-ed entitled “Gonzales is ideal choice for court.”

“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.

Available online from National Public Radio: On today’s broadcast of “Morning Edition,” Nina Totenberg had a segment entitled “A Look at the Short List to Fill O’Connor Vacancy.”

And this evening’s broadcast of “All Things Considered” contained a segment entitled “Democrats Prepare to Vet a Supreme Hopeful.”

RealPlayer is required to launch these audio segments.

“A Prosecutor Who Didn’t Back Down: Patrick J. Fitzgerald pushed for the jailing of two reporters who refused to testify; Legal observers disagree on whether he was right.” This article appears today in The Los Angeles Times.

In Saturday’s edition of The Washington Post: The newspaper will contain a front page article headlined “Business Pushes Its Own Brand Of Justice; Tough Lobbying For Court Seat.”

And in other news, “Court Watchers Are Resigned to Wait; Rehnquist Keeps Washington Guessing About a Second Vacancy.”

“Judge Urged to Dismiss Gay Military Case”: In news from Boston, The Associated Press reports here that “A federal prosecutor urged a judge Friday to dismiss a legal challenge to the U.S. military’s ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy on gay service members, arguing that only Congress can change it.”

And The Los Angeles Times provides a news update headlined “Lawsuit Is Filed vs. Military Policy Against Homosexuals.”

Fight For Your Right (To Party): The Boston Globe today contains an article headlined “Lawsuit asserts right to get drunk on private property.”

The Green Bag announces even more details of its Justice Antonin Scalia bobblehead doll distribution policy: The specifics are available here.

Meanwhile, the eBay auction of a Justice Sandra Day O’Connor bobblehead that wrapped-up today ended with a winning bid of $207.50. This may suggest that the dolls become worth less (but not worthless) once the Justice they depict announces his or her retirement.

“Rumors Fly Over Rehnquist’s Plans”: Lawrence K. Altman and Linda Greenhouse will have this article Saturday in The New York Times.

A vehicle arises for the U.S. Supreme Court to test whether a ban of partial-birth abortion remains unconstitutional once Justice Sandra Day O’Connor is no longer serving on the Court: Today the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit became the first appellate court to adjudicate the constitutionality of the federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003. Readers may recall that challenges to the law were brought in California, Nebraska, and New York, and each federal district court declared the law unconstitutional.

Today a unanimous three-judge Eighth Circuit panel agreed that the federal law was unconstitutional under the U.S. Supreme Court‘s 5-4 ruling from 2000 in Stenberg v. Carhart, a case in which Justice O’Connor provided the crucial fifth vote for holding a state law prohibition on partial-birth abortion unconstitutional. You can access today’s Eighth Circuit ruling at this link. The name of today’s case, coincidentally, is Carhart v. Gonzales. The Carhart is the same in both cases, while the Gonzales is Attorney General (and possible Supreme Court nominee) Alberto Gonzales, who likely would recuse himself, if he is confirmed to the Supreme Court, from ruling on any of these three cases involving the constitutionality of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 because he is currently the named party in all of the cases.

Also, the Eighth Circuit’s decision in this case and the likelihood that the federal government will seek U.S. Supreme Court review of that decision will enable whomever is nominated to the Supreme Court to refrain from testifying at his or her confirmation hearings on the subject of what abortion-related restrictions are permissible, because that nominee if confirmed would certainly be immediately facing cases presenting that very question. Whether the nominee’s ability to duck such a question benefits pro-choice or pro-life forces will only be learned post-confirmation, when it’s too late for the disgruntled side to do anything about it.

In coverage of today’s ruling, The Lincoln Journal Star reports that “Appeals court: Abortion ban unconstitutional.” The AP reports that “Neb. Court Upholds Partial Birth Decision.” And at “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “‘Partial-birth’ abortion case advances.”

“Bush Discusses Court Candidates”: The AP provides this report.

And Steven Thomma of Knight Ridder Newspapers has an article headlined “Parties at odds over Senate’s role in picking high court nominee.”