Available online from law.com: Tony Mauro has articles headlined “Judicial Conference Supports Citing Unpublished Opinions; Policy-making arm of federal judiciary takes no position on splitting of 9th Circuit” and “The Chief Justice Who Wasn’t There; Scholar claims there have been 17 chiefs, not 16, because of the two-day stint of one William Cushing.”

And in news from Georgia, “Inmate Pleads Guilty to Threatening Supreme Court Justices.”

“Top Democrat Says He’ll Vote No on Roberts”: This article will appear Wednesday in The New York Times.

Wednesday’s edition of The Washington Post will report that “Reid Will Oppose Roberts for Chief Justice; But Leader Predicts Easy Confirmation With ‘Plenty of Votes’ From Democrats.”

And The Los Angeles Times provides a news update headlined “Democratic Leader Says He Will Vote Against Roberts.”

“Roberts Poses Calculus Test for Democrats; Senators Weigh Whether Vote Should Send a Message to Bush, Liberal Base or to Centrists”: This article (free access) will appear Wednesday in The Wall Street Journal.

The Hill on Wednesday will report that “Reid ‘no’ vote on Roberts could be Dem green light.”

And Knight Ridder Newspapers offer a report headlined “Senate Democratic leader will oppose Roberts’ confirmation.”

“Law School To Allow Military Recruiters On Campus; HLS decision comes after Pentagon threatened to withhold federal grants”: The Harvard Crimson provides this news update.

Kelo testifies about Kelo: Today the Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing titled “The Kelo Decision: Investigating Takings of Homes and other Private Property.” You can access via this link the prepared testimony of the witnesses who appeared, including the testimony of Susette Kelo, the lead petitioner in Kelo v. City of New London.

Over at “Balkinization,” Marty Lederman has a post titled “The Myths of Kelo” focusing on today’s prepared testimony from Law Professor Thomas W. Merrill.

Available online from Slate: Emily Bazelon has a jurisprudence essay entitled “Who’s Next? Supreme Court scuttlebutt.”

And Bruce Reed’s “The Has-Been” has a post titled “No Further Answers: John Roberts’s day in court.”

In news from Oklahoma: The Associated Press provides a report headlined “Jurors Will See Judge’s Alleged Sex Toy.” The Smoking Gun web site has previously reported on this matter here and here.

“Judicial Conference Supports Citing Unpublished Opinions; Policy-making arm of federal judiciary takes no position on splitting of 9th Circuit”: law.com’s Tony Mauro provides this news update.

The Associated Press is reporting: Jesse J. Holland reports that “Senate Petitioned in Eminent Domain Case.” And in other news, “Hinckley’s Therapists Say He’s Normal” and “Wendy’s Chili Finger Tipster Has Beef.”

“Roberts Fails to Meet the Test: People For the American Way Post-Hearing Report.” The organization People For the American Way issued this press release today, and the new report — the organization’s “final report on Chief Justice nominee John Roberts” — can be accessed here.

“Conference Memorializes Late Chief Justice; Acts on Administrative, Legislative Matters”: The Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts has today issued a news release that states, among other things, that today the Judicial Conference of the United States:

Approved new Rule 32.1 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, which concerns the citation of unpublished opinions. The proposed rule, which still must be approved by the Supreme Court and transmitted to Congress, was first published for comment in August 2003. Since then, studies have been conducted, a public hearing convened, and more than 500 comments submitted. The present practice governing citation of unpublished opinions varies among the circuits, with some permitting citation, others disfavoring citation but permitting it in certain circumstances, and others prohibiting citation. Proposed Rule 32.1 permits the citation in briefs of opinions, orders, or other judicial dispositions that have been designated “not for publication,” “non-precedential,” or the like. The rule applies only to decisions issued on or after January 1, 2007.

This is excellent news, and I congratulate all who have worked tirelessly over the past many years to bring this result to fruition.

“Democratic Leader Intends to Vote Against Roberts”: The New York Times provides this news update.

“Slate’s Jurisprudence: The Next High Court Nominee.” This segment (RealPlayer required) featuring Dahlia Lithwick appeared on today’s broadcast of NPR‘s “Day to Day.”

The Associated Press is reporting: Now available online are articles headlined “Reid Likely to Oppose Roberts’ Nomination“; “Sen. Boxer Writes Novel About Senate“; and “Who Says a Lawyer Needs Law School?”

Somewhat relatedly, the topic of this week’s Debate Club feature at legalaffairs.org is “Abolish the Third Year of Law School?”

When free hit counters attack: Yesterday, I noticed that my first visit of the day to “How Appealing” was accompanied by an annoying “pop-up” ad for online poker. This afternoon’s pop-up ad was for some type of dating service. Apparently the free Nedstat basic hit counter that this blog was using to count visitors was serving up these ads. In any event, I have removed the hit counter from my site and its Movable Type archives, so those of you who visit in search of online poker and dating services will once again be forced to look elsewhere (or you can visit my pre-March 2005 archive pages). I offer my apologies to all who had to endure the annoyance of these pop-up ads over the last day or so.

“Plain legal writing” blog: Wayne Schiess is the author of this blog, which I learned about via “Crime & Federalism.”

Seventh Circuit Judge Richard A. Posner examines “class of one” equal protection claims asserted by public employees: Today’s ruling, on behalf of a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, can be accessed here.

“From Hegel to Wilson to Breyer: Liberal constitutional theory returns to its foreign roots.” Online at The Weekly Standard, Paul Mirengoff and Scott Johnson have this essay today.

“3rd Circuit Panel Revives Gallup Suit”: Today in The Legal Intelligencer, Shannon P. Duffy has this article (registration required) about a non-precedential ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued yesterday.

Upcoming speaking engagements: This Friday, I’ll be at The Thomas M. Cooley Law School in Lansing, Michigan to give a noontime speech to that law school’s Federalist Society chapter.

On Saturday, October 29, 2005, another well-known law blogger and I will be participating in a panel presentation at the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California‘s 2005 Conference in Monterey, California.

And on Monday, November 7, 2005, I’ll be in Chicago, Illinois at the invitation of the University of Chicago Law School‘s American Constitution Society chapter to debate the Solomon Amendment case with the founder and president of Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights.

“DoD withholds funds from three law schools”: The Yale Daily News today contains an article that begins, “The Pentagon has targeted three small law schools it says are violating a law requiring campus access for military recruiters and has classified them as ineligible for federal funding, even as it has declined to pursue the high-profile law schools where the debate over the constitutionality of banning such recruiters has been centered.”

“Cameras Headed To Court? Bill Would Put Supremes on Air.” Roll Call today contains this article (subscription required) about a bill under consideration in the U.S. Congress.

“Who Will Bush Tap As Next Court Nominee?” The Associated Press provides this report.

“England faces court-martial again in Abu Ghraib scandal; After a mistrial and delays, she is not expected to plead guilty as trial starts today”: The Houston Chronicle contains this article today.

“White House Is Said to Shift Names on List for 2nd Seat”: This article appears today in The New York Times.

Tom Curry, national affairs writer for MSNBC, has a report headlined “Which Democrats will vote ‘yes’ on Roberts? Keeping an eye on Clinton, Bayh, and other presidential contenders.”

The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reports that “Specter says he’ll back Roberts; calls him ‘fair, non-ideological.’”

The Philadelphia Inquirer reports that “Specter says he’ll vote in favor of the ‘well-qualified’ Roberts; He said the nominee didn’t answer all of his questions, but tackled more than he had to.”

The San Francisco Chronicle reports that “Pro-choice Republican senator says he’ll vote for Roberts; Specter cites judge’s remarks on right to privacy.”

The New York Sun reports that “With Nod From Specter, Roberts Gets a Big Advance.”

The Washington Times reports that “Specter will back Roberts for court.”

And The Richmond Times-Dispatch reports that “Roberts impressed Virginia lawyers.”

In commentary, The Los Angeles Times contains an editorial entitled “Confirm Roberts.”

The Louisville Courier-Journal also contains an editorial entitled “Confirm Roberts,” as does The Winston-Salem Journal.

The San Antonio Express-News contains an editorial entitled “Roberts deserves OK to be the chief justice.”

The Amarillo Globe-News contains an editorial entitled “Passing judgment on Judge Roberts; Nominee deserves confirmation.”

The Kennebec (Me.) Journal contains an editorial entitled “Confirm John Roberts as chief justice.”

The Tucson Citizen contains an editorial entitled “Roberts shows he is qualified for high court.”

And The Berkshire Eagle contains an editorial entitled “Roberts earns confirmation.”

“O’Connor notes ‘scary’ decision; Eminent domain ‘touched nerve'”: The Arizona Republic contains this article today.