“Your Handy Guide to Right-Wing Lawyers Who Hate Brian Leiter…or the Company that Eugene Volokh Keeps”: Professor Brian Leiter has this post today at his blog, “Leiter Reports.”

“Gross Distortions: The media on John Roberts’s civil-rights record.” Edward Whelan has this essay today at National Review Online.

“Roberts’ US Senate hearing to start Sept 6-sources”: Reuters provides this report. And thanks to all who have thus far submitted entries for the related contest I launched this morning. Many of the submissions are quite good, which will make the task of judging them all the more difficult.

“Court Reinstates Anthrax Defamation Suit Against N.Y. Times”: This article appears today in The Washington Post.

And The New York Times itself reports today that “Appeal Restores Libel Case Against Times.”

The Associated Press is reporting: Jesse J. Holland has articles headlined “Edwards Citicizes Supreme Court Nominee” and “Senator-Turned-Actor at Roberts’ Side.”

In news from New Hampshire, “Libertarians Propose Taking Breyer Land.”

And in other news, “Jailed Reporter Praises Prison Staff.”

In news from Connecticut: The Hartford Courant today contains an article headlined “Eminent Domain Revisited; Legislators Told State’s Laws Already Offer Protection For Homeowners In Many Cases.”

And The Day of New London today contains articles headlined “Two Sides Of Eminent Domain: Fort Trumbull plaintiffs, NLDC make their cases in Hartford” and “Activists Carry Fight To The Capitol; Eminent domain foes join forces to press for changes in state law.”

“Who is John Roberts?” This segment (RealPlayer required) featuring Charlie Savage of The Boston Globe appeared on Wednesday’s broadcast of the public radio program “Here and Now.” If anyone knows what the missing third of the Savage triumvirate — Luiza Ch. Savage — is doing these days, I’d be curious to find out. [Update: To answer my own question, it appears that Luiza has left The New York Sun to write for Maclean’s.]

“Snubbing the Supremes”: That’s the title of Ken Rudin’s most recent “Political Junkie” column available online at NPR.org.

“A Document Request for Senator Schumer: Turnabout is fair play.” Law Professor Steven G. Calabresi has this essay online at The Weekly Standard.

Available from National Review Online: An editorial entitled “Underprivileged” begins, “The skillfully managed White House rollout of the Roberts nomination has suffered its first major mistake.”

And Andrew C. McCarthy has an essay entitled “Schumer Is Right: Judge Roberts should tell us what he thinks of Roe and other precedents.”

Dumb-ass questions contest: Why should seven Democratic U.S. Senators and their staff have all the fun? Why indeed!

Accordingly, I am hereby launching a “How Appealing” contest to identify the most dumb-ass question that could possibly be asked of U.S. Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts, Jr. at his upcoming confirmation hearings. Unlike last time, when U.S. Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT) put himself in charge of deciding whether or not questions for Roberts were appropriately characterized as “dumb-ass,” this time I’m the sole referee of this admittedly entirely subjective contest.

Entries should be submitted to me via email, along with your name and a statement whether I can identify you by name if your entry is the winner or a runner-up in the “Most dumb-ass question for Judge Roberts” contest. The winner and runners-up receive the psychic reward of knowing that their questions were, in my subjective view, among the most dumb-ass questions that this blog’s audience submitted in response to this contest, along with the admittedly fleeting pleasure of seeing their names mentioned here at “How Appealing” if they give permission for me to do so. Please enter early and often, because this contest could (and indeed at some point will) end at any time.

“Democrats Request Files Involving Court Pick”: This article appears today in The New York Times, along with an article headlined “In Records, a Privately Blunt Roberts Showed Public Tact.”

Today in The Los Angeles Times, David G. Savage has an article headlined “Privilege Claim May Not Apply to Roberts Papers; His ex-boss, Kenneth Starr, won a ruling against the protection during Whitewater.” And in related news, “Democrats Pinpoint the Files They Want; They call their request for Roberts’ documents ‘limited’; Republicans say it’s a delay tactic.”

The Washington Times reports that “Senators demand Roe be upheld.” Today’s newspaper also contains an op-ed by R. Emmett Tyrrell Jr. entitled “Right focus on the law” and an op-ed by Robert Stacy McCain (who apparently believes the nominee’s name is “James G. Roberts”) entitled “Vexations.”

The San Francisco Chronicle reports that “7 Dem women want to know Roberts’ stand on privacy; Senators say his view is key to keeping gay, abortion rights.”

In The Oakland Tribune, Josh Richman reports that “Senators invite public to question nominee; Web site collects queries for Roberts’ Supreme Court confirmation hearing.”

The Times-Picayune reports that “Landrieu ‘very impressed’ with Roberts; Senator meets court nominee, debuts Web site.”

The Pawtucket Times reports that “Almond advocates Roberts.”

In commentary, today’s edition of The Wall Street Journal contains an op-ed by Law Professor Douglas W. Kmiec entitled “Roberts and Rome: Does Catholic belief interfere with judicial reasoning? What kind of question is that?”

In The Naples Daily News, Dan K. Thomasson has an op-ed entitled “Search for opinions in John Roberts’ past has gone too far: The search through legal papers and opinions in Supreme Court nominee John Roberts’ past has reached the point of ridiculousness; It’s time to vote.”

In The San Diego Union-Tribune, columnist Ruben Navarrette Jr. recently had an op-ed entitled “Minorities and women also are ‘qualified.’”

And in The Rocky Mountain News, columnist Mike Rosen has an op-ed entitled “Here comes the judge.”

Commentary available online from FindLaw: John W. Dean has an essay entitled “Supreme Court Nominee John G. Roberts: How Many Of His Government Records Can Be Hidden From the Senate?”

And Joanna Grossman has an essay entitled “When Can Consensual Sex Create a Hostile Workplace Environment? The California Supreme Court Weighs In on the Claim of Sexual Favoritism.”

The Chicago Tribune is reporting: Today’s newspaper contains an article headlined “Probe of Sensenbrenner sought; Group writes letter to House ethics panel” that begins, “An advocacy group has asked the House ethics committee to open an investigation of Rep. James Sensenbrenner, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, alleging that the Wisconsin Republican violated ethics rules by attempting to influence a decision in an appeals court case in Chicago.”

And yesterday’s newspaper contained an article headlined “Slaying suspect’s letters to reporter OKd for trial” that begins, “Interview transcripts and letters sent to a Chicago Tribune reporter can be used at trial against a man accused of killing six hunters in northern Wisconsin, including a statement that some of the victims deserved their fate because they threatened him and called him racist names, a judge ruled Wednesday.”

“Divided Front: How Media Split Under Pressure In the Leak Probe; Ms. Miller of the Times Had A Separate Dispute With Special Prosecutor; Mr. Abrams Loses a Client.” The Wall Street Journal contains this front page article (free access provided) today.

“Soledad cross measure wins; issue will still head to court”: This article appeared Wednesday in The San Diego Union-Tribune.

The Topeka Capital-Journal is reporting: Today’s newspaper contains articles headlined “Court: Bishop statue was acceptable; ‘Holier than thou’ was at Washburn until exhibit ended a year ago” and “Far right eyes ways to change Supreme Court.”

“This court holds that the statue’s placement on Washburn’s campus under these circumstances does not constitute an unconstitutional endorsement of an anti-Catholic message”: A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit on Thursday issued that court’s ruling on a lawsuit involving a statue titled “Holier Than Thou” — installed on Washburn University’s campus in September 2003 — depicting a clergyman with a bishop’s miter that some said was offensive to the Roman Catholic church because of its phallic appearance. You can view photographs of the statue here and here.

The federal trial court’s ruling that was the subject of the appeal decided on Thursday can be accessed at this link, while plaintiffs’ complaint initiating suit can be accessed here. Law Professor Eugene Volokh blogged about this dispute in a post from February 2004.

The lawsuit has garnered extensive press coverage. The Topeka Capital-Journal in early- to mid-2004 published articles headlined:

• “Controversial statue removed from campus; New exhibit will take its place at Washburn“;
• “Regents vote support of WU stance in keeping ‘Holier Than Thou’ statue“;
• “Wichita lifts Washburn ban; School board reverses measure prohibiting college’s recruiters“;
• “Judge rules sculpture can stay“; and
• “Sculpture battle back in court; Archbishop says ‘Holier Than Thou’ mocks Catholic teachings, faith.”

Meanwhile, in other coverage, WorldNetDaily reported that “University’s sculpture mocks Catholics; Judge OKs ‘Holier than Thou,’ depicting bishop with ‘phallus’ miter,” while CNSNews.com reported that “Federal Judge Upholds Display of ‘Anti-Catholic’ Statue.”

The above-linked news reports focused on the case while it was pending before a federal trial court. I’ll be on the lookout for news coverage of Thursday’s Tenth Circuit ruling on the case.

In U.S. Supreme Court nominee-related commentary: Today’s edition of USA Today contains an editorial entitled “Open Roberts’ record to his client: the public; Court nominee’s views remain too opaque for reasoned judgment” and an op-ed by Law Professor Viet D. Dinh entitled “Candor needs privacy; Releasing documents would dry up U.S. lawyers’ independent analysis.”

In The Boston Globe, Jeff Jacoby has an op-ed entitled “When justices refuse to retire.”

In The Fort Worth Star-Telegram, columnist Linda Campbell has an essay entitled “Put away the litmus paper.”

Online at Salon.com, Law Professor David D. Cole has an essay entitled “On Bush’s bench? Supporters argue John Roberts will be committed to judicial restraint; But in his Guantanamo ruling, he gave Bush virtually unlimited powers in the war on terror; This is restraint?” And Michael Scherer has an essay entitled “The left’s damp powder: The battle over Bush’s Supreme Court nominee was supposed to be epic — so why hasn’t it even started yet?”

Today in The San Francisco Chronicle, Steven Winn has an essay entitled “The Supreme Court demands supreme theater; So where’s the drama in Roberts’ nomination?”

In The Washington Times, Thomas Sowell has an op-ed entitled “Geared for a fight … over ‘views.’”

In The Los Angeles Times, Crispin Sartwell has an essay entitled “I married a feminist.”

From Bloomberg News, Margaret Carlson has an essay entitled “John Roberts and Good Catholic, Bad Catholic,” while Law Professor Goodwin Liu has an essay entitled “Roberts Would Swing the Supreme Court to the Right.”

In The New York Daily News, Stanley Crouch has an essay entitled “Memo to GOP: Roberts could disappoint,” while Sidney Zion has an essay entitled “Bush vs. Gore is the litmus test.”

In The Philadelphia Daily News, Rotan E. Lee has an op-ed entitled “Stacking the Supreme Court deck.”

In The Cincinnati Enquirer, Nicholas P. Wise has an op-ed entitled “Give DeWine credit for brilliant deal.”

In The Clarion-Ledger, Lynn Evans has an essay entitled “O’Connor has large shoes for Roberts to fill.”

At National Review Online, Abigail and Stephan Thernstrom have an essay entitled “Talk about Affirmative Action: John Roberts could make a big difference on the Court.”

And finally for now, Ann Coulter has an essay entitled “Fool me 8 times, shame on me.”

“Democrats Hope to Use Starr Ruling to Gain Roberts’ Memos”: David G. Savage will have this article Friday in The Los Angeles Times. And tomorrow’s newspaper will also report that “Democrats Limit Scope of Roberts Document Requests.”

Available online from law.com: An article reports that “Liberal Lobbyists on Sidelines of Roberts Nomination.”

And in other news, “Calif. Justices Reopen Dog-Maul Case.”

“Judge’s Reagan-Era Work Criticized; Papers Show Roberts’s Conservatism, Liberal Activists Say”: This article will appear Friday in The Washington Post. Tomorrow’s newspaper will also contain an article headlined “What the Federalist Society Stands For; Group Is Haven for Conservative Thought.”

“Court Reinstates Hatfill Suit Vs. Times”: The Associated Press provides this report.

And Reuters reports that “US appeals court reinstates anthrax libel lawsuit.”

My earlier coverage is here.

“What the Documents Say About John Roberts”: This segment (RealPlayer required) featuring David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times and Law Professors Jeffrey Rosen and Michael Gerhardt appeared on today’s broadcast of NPR‘s “Talk of the Nation.”

In Friday’s edition of The Christian Science Monitor: Tomorrow’s newspaper will contain an article headlined “Key turf war: control of nominee’s old papers; The Bush administration cites executive privilege in withholding Roberts’s files, a tactic that is often successful.”

And Roderick Nordell will have an essay entitled “You gotta put down the duckie if you wanna be a justice.”

Might as well just buy it now: The bid on this auction of a Justice Sandra Day O’Connor bobblehead doll is now $300. For the same price, you can “buy it now” from a different eBay seller. [Update: Someone has indeed done just that.]

“What would you ask Judge Roberts?” Seven Democratic female U.S. Senators want to know.

“Roberts tells Democrat he won’t be ‘activist judge'”: Thomas Ferraro of Reuters provides this report.

“Kennedy Questions Roberts on Civil Rights”: The Associated Press provides this report.

“Please Ignore This Case: An Empirical Study of Nonprecedential Opinions in the Federal Circuit.” Beth Zeitlin Shaw has this interesting law review article (via “Appellate Law & Practice“).

“Lockyer approves ballot petitions; Same-sex marriage bans need 600,000 signatures each”: The San Francisco Chronicle today contains an article that begins, “Two ballot measures seeking a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage in California received approval for circulation from Attorney General Bill Lockyer Wednesday.”

Perhaps that’s why Congress called the legislation the Deadbeat Parents Punishment Act instead of the Deadbeat Parents May Collaterally Attack Any State Court Support Order They Don’t Like Act: Today a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued a decision holding that “defendants charged with violating the DPPA cannot collaterally challenge the subject matter jurisdiction of the state court that entered the underlying support order.”

“If high court overturns Roe v. Wade, decision would undermine the GOP”: This past Sunday, Michael Hill had this essay in The Baltimore Sun.

“Procrastinated Geekery”: PG at the blog “De Novo” has some thoughts about The Bluebook‘s 18th Edition’s rules on citation to blogs.

Divided three-judge Fourth Circuit panel reverses the dismissal of claims under Virginia law for defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress brought by Dr. Steven J. Hatfill against The New York Times Company and columnist Nicholas Kristof: You can access today’s ruling, which reverses a Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) dismissal, at this link.