How Appealing

Friday, September 16, 2005

“Senators talk politics, while Roberts focuses on law”: Stephen Henderson of Knight Ridder Newspapers provides this report.

Posted at 9:08 PM by Howard Bashman

“Wearing the Right to Free Speech on Her Sleeve”: The Washington Post today contains an article that begins, “Mary Beth Tinker looks like an ordinary, middle-aged woman. Nothing about her subdued clothing, hairstyle or mannered demeanor suggests she’s an answer on law school exams. Except for the black armband.”

Posted at 5:11 PM by Howard Bashman

“Bloomberg opposes Roberts’ nomination”: Reuters provides a report that begins, “New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg on Friday opposed John Roberts’ nomination to be U.S. Supreme Court chief justice, making him the first noted Republican to break with the Bush administration over who should lead America’s top court.”

Posted at 4:42 PM by Howard Bashman

Three-judge Eleventh Circuit panel issues opinion on petition for rehearing in Michael B. Price v. Time, Inc.: Today’s opinion, by Circuit Judge Ed Carnes, begins:

The opinion we issued in this case requires Price, as a condition for a disclosure order, to depose four women one of whom probably is the confidential source for the article that gave rise to this lawsuit. Price v. Time, Inc., 416 F.3d 1327, 1347 (11th Cir. 2005). In imposing that requirement, we took into account this assurance given to us by counsel for the defendants: if the woman who is the confidential source testified during her deposition that she was not the source, counsel would “do his duty as an officer of the court and inform the district court that the witness’ sworn denial was false.” Id. That is the commitment counsel made to us during oral argument.

The defendants have filed a petition for rehearing requesting that we delete from our opinion any suggestion that their counsel is obligated to inform the court if the woman whose identity as the confidential source they and he have been protecting falsely denies under oath that she is the source. They take the position that a lawyer has no obligation to inform the court if a witness, other than his own client, has lied under oath. They insist that it is the perfect prerogative of an officer of the court to stand silently by as the search for truth is led astray by perjury—assuming, of course, that the perjury serves his client’s interests.

That is an interesting position.

The panel’s original opinion is here, and my coverage of it is here.

Posted at 3:10 PM by Howard Bashman

“The issue of the admissibility of evidence concerning the absence of prior accidents presents recurring difficulties in product liability cases”: A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit today issued a decision in which it took the “opportunity to provide the district courts with guidance concerning the foundation that must be laid by a product liability defendant who seeks to introduce testimony concerning the non-occurrence of prior accidents.”

Posted at 2:24 PM by Howard Bashman

“Yahoo Flap in China May Be Harbinger”: Today in The New York Sun, Josh Gerstein has an article that begins, “The flap over Yahoo’s involvement in the jailing of a Chinese journalist is likely to be the harbinger of a coming wave of ethical quandries for American technology companies who have rushed to grab a share of China’s burgeoning market, according to China experts and human rights advocates.”

In earlier coverage, c|net News.Com reported that “Group says Yahoo helped jail Chinese journalist.”

The Times of London reported that “Yahoo! ‘helped to jail journalist’” and “Yahoo! on defensive over jailed Chinese journalist” and published an essay by Dominic Rushe entitled “Yahoo’s serious failure to stand up to Chinese censors.”

BBC News reported that “Firms face moral dilemma in China.” published an essay by Greg Levine entitled “Did Semel’s Yahoo! Help Beijing Jail Reporter?

And The Sydney Morning Herald on Monday of this week reported that “Web firm admits aid to censors.”

Posted at 2:14 PM by Howard Bashman

Good morning, Ninth Circuit: As first noted here late last night, in today’s edition of The Recorder of San Francisco, attorney Cyrus Sanai has an interesting essay entitled “Taking the Kozinski Challenge” that begins, “The fiercest battle within the federal appellate courts these days is not over abortion or gay marriage, but the arcane question of whether an attorney may cite the unpublished case law of an appellate court as the binding law of the circuit.”

Posted at 11:15 AM by Howard Bashman

“Roberts Shows Some Openness; Nominee Hints at Judicial Approach, Says He Isn’t an Ideologue”: Jess Bravin and Jeanne Cummings have this article (pass-through link) today in The Wall Street Journal.

Posted at 10:33 AM by Howard Bashman

Available online from National Public Radio: On today’s broadcast of “Morning Edition,” Nina Totenberg had a report entitled “Witnesses Weigh in on Nominee Roberts.”

Last night, NPR had an hour-long special report on the wrap-up of the confirmation hearing.

Yesterday evening’s broadcast of “All Things Considered” contained segments entitled “Senators Seek Last Assurances from Roberts” (featuring Nina Totenberg) and “The Senate’s Judgment of John Roberts” (featuring Law Professors Jeffrey Rosen and Douglas W. Kmiec).

And yesterday’s broadcast of “Day to Day” contained segments entitled “Senators Set to Wrap Roberts Confirmation Hearing” and “Slate’s Jurisprudence: Roberts Revelations, So Far” (featuring Dahlia Lithwick).

RealPlayer is required to launch these audio segments.

Posted at 10:15 AM by Howard Bashman

“A new voice in pledge battle: Mother of atheist’s child at center of dispute defends ‘under God.'” This article appears today in The Sacramento Bee. Potential alternate headline: “Banning disfavors doing that to Pledge.”

Posted at 10:04 AM by Howard Bashman

Will another Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist bobblehead doll sell at auction on eBay for more than $1,000? This auction will conclude at 1:27 a.m. eastern time Saturday morning, and the current high bid (as of the time this post appeared) is $375.00.

Yesterday, as I previously noted here, a Chief Justice Rehnquist bobblehead sold at auction on eBay for a whopping $1,077.00. I once ridiculed the Eighth Circuit‘s library system for keeping its Chief Justice Rehnquist bobblehead dolls under lock and key, but in retrospect that has proved to be quite prudent. Owners of the doll may wish to check with their homeowner’s insurance provider to see whether the doll needs to be separately scheduled in order to be insured for its full value.

Posted at 8:44 AM by Howard Bashman

“Liberals and Conservatives Remain Worlds Apart on Roberts’s Suitability”: This article appears today in The New York Times, along with an article headlined “Frustrated by Roberts, and Unsure How to Vote.”

The Washington Post contains an article headlined “John Roberts and a Judge of History; Civil Rights Icon John Lewis Takes A Seat, and a Stand.” And columnist Charles Krauthammer has an op-ed entitled “Roe v. Roberts.”

The Los Angeles Times reports that “Democrats Consider a Voting Strategy; Minority-party senators can’t block Roberts’ confirmation, but they can send a message about the next nominee.”

In USA Today, Joan Biskupic reports that “Roberts’ Senate testimony comes to a close; Some questions still open.” And in related coverage, “Senators save breath for next court debate.”

The Chicago Tribune reports that “Democrats agonize over Roberts vote.”

In The San Francisco Chronicle, Bob Egelko reports that “Roberts dazzles, baffles Democrats; Frustration over testimony, but nominee on track for confirmation.”

The Boston Globe contains articles headlined “Roberts sees little drama or tension; Democrats say much unknown as vote nears” and “Would-be showdown lost audience.” And Charlie Savage has an article headlined “Pressed on compassion, Roberts defers to law.”

In The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Michael McGough and Maeve Reston have an article headlined “Agony over Roberts: Democrats left unsure as hearings end for chief justice nominee.”

The Dallas Morning News reports that “For Roberts, 1 question remains; Senate panel wraps up hearings, plans to vote on nominee Thursday.”

Newsday reports that “Roberts sticks to his legal script.” And Law Professor Susan N. Herman has an op-ed entitled “Roberts’ pitch more like a curveball; It’s unfair for Supreme Court nominee to liken the job of a justice to that of an umpire because, unlike baseball, opinions of law can’t be verified.”

The Houston Chronicle reports that “Roberts tries to reassure: ‘I am not an ideologue’; Confirmation as chief justice appears certain after four days of Senate hearings.”

The St. Petersburg Times contains a news analysis headlined “Might the new boss be same as the old boss?

The New York Sun reports that “Democrats Doubt Roberts on Equal, Civil Rights.”

The Washington Times reports that “Democrats hit Roberts’ ambiguity.” An editorial is entitled “Inviting a hurricane.” David Limbaugh has an op-ed entitled “Twisting the benchmarks.” And Thomas Sowell has an op-ed entitled “Whose Constitution is it?

The Hartford Courant reports that “Public Gets Its Shot At Roberts; Comments To Panel Held To 5 Minutes.”

The Arizona Daily Star reports that “Kyl says Roberts showed ‘brilliant,’ ‘precise’ thinking.”

The Brattleboro Reformer reports that “Leahy more at ease with Roberts.”

The Knoxville News Sentinel reports that “Tennessean has her say on Roberts; Paraplegic worries he might strip away hard-fought rights.”

The Herald-Sun reports that “Duke professor backs nominee for chief justice.”

The Anchorage Daily News reports that “Alaska’s former top lawyer testifies on Roberts’ behalf; Nominee is brilliant, humble, past attorney general says.”

The Des Moines Register reports that “Ex-Iowans join rival debates on nominee.”

The Harvard Crimson contains articles headlined “Roberts Cut Legal Teeth Early” and “Nominee Spars With Senators.”

Indian Country Today reports that “American Indian cases await new Supreme Court head” and “In hearings, Roberts signals how he’d run Supreme Court.”

The Gallup Organization reports that “Americans Support Roberts’ Confirmation; Half of Americans have a favorable opinion of nominee.”

In The Wall Street Journal, Law Professor Mary Ann Glendon has an op-ed entitled “Judicial Tourism: What’s wrong with the U.S. Supreme Court citing foreign law.”

And in The Newark Star-Ledger, columnist John Farmer has an op-ed entitled “Roberts ducking and bobbing his way to confirmation.”

Posted at 6:40 AM by Howard Bashman