How Appealing

Thursday, September 22, 2005

“In this case we decide whether the Government’s assertion of military secrets privilege for an accident report discussing the October 6, 1948 crash of a B-29 bomber which killed three civilian engineers along with six military personnel, at Waycross, Georgia, was fraud upon the court.” So begins an opinion that Senior Circuit Judge Ruggero J. Aldisert issued today on behalf of a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

Posted at 9:34 PM by Howard Bashman

“Roberts wins Committee approval”: Lyle Denniston has this report online at “SCOTUSblog.”

The Los Angeles Times provides a news update headlined “Senate Judiciary Panel Votes for Roberts.”

Ron Hutcheson of Knight Ridder Newspapers reports that “Roberts cruises toward confirmation; senators debate next nominee.” reports that “Roberts Approved 13-5 by Senate Judiciary Committee.”

The Associated Press reports that “Roberts Nomination Sent to Full Senate.”

Thomas Ferraro of Reuters reports that “Senate panel backs Roberts.”

And Bloomberg News reports that “U.S. Senate Panel Backs Roberts to Be Chief Justice.”

Posted at 9:15 PM by Howard Bashman

“Justice Stevens is key to high court’s future; It’s not Sandra Day O’Connor’s retirement that could threaten Roe v. Wade”: Tom Curry, national affairs writer for MSNBC, provides this report.

Posted at 8:55 PM by Howard Bashman

Sixth Circuit refuses to recognize First Amendment right to confront Transportation Security Administration airport passenger security screeners with loud and profane language and belligerent conduct: Today’s ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit can be accessed at this link. Not that I’ve ever had this problem in the past, but this ruling conveniently issues a day before I’m scheduled to pass-through a Sixth Circuit-based airport security checkpoint on my trip home tomorrow from Lansing, Michigan.

Posted at 11:20 AM by Howard Bashman

“Roberts’s Responses May Further Add to Debate”: Today in The Wall Street Journal, Jess Bravin and Jeanne Cummings have an article (pass-through link) that begins, “Chief justice nominee John Roberts, who gained a law-and-order reputation as deputy solicitor general and federal circuit judge, cast doubt on a 1958 Supreme Court precedent that underpins recent rulings finding the execution of juvenile offenders and the mentally retarded to be unconstitutional.”

Posted at 10:24 AM by Howard Bashman

“Stars off the bench: 3 women judges are a stellar monument to judicial independence.” The Arizona Republic today contains an editorial that begins, “Monday’s constellation of women judges at ASU’s College of Law was the kind of celebrity show that should, but didn’t, attract hordes of screaming fans and autograph hunters. Judge groupies? Silly idea? We don’t think so.”

Posted at 7:12 AM by Howard Bashman

“Chief Justice Vote Splits Top Democrats; Judiciary Committee member Patrick Leahy says he’ll vote for John G. Roberts Jr.; The party has no unified strategy on the nomination”: This article appears today in The Los Angeles Times.

In The Chicago Tribune, Jan Crawford Greenburg reports today that “Bush weighs political pros, cons of O’Connor’s successor.”

USA Today reports that “Key Democrat voices support for Roberts; Senators focus on second vacancy.”

Charlie Savage of The Boston Globe reports that “Leahy, in surprise, voices support for Roberts; Kennedy, Kerry oppose court pick.”

Luiza Ch. Savage, writing in Mcleans, has an article headlined “‘Judges are like umpires’; The John Roberts hearings prove to be downright civilized.”

The New York Sun reports that “Leahy Set to Back Judge Roberts For High Court.”

The Washington Times reports that “Leahy backs Roberts nomination.”

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reports that “Roberts picks up key vote; Democrat praises ‘man of integrity.’

And The Rocky Mountain News reports that “Salazar unsure on Roberts vote; Both sides lobby Colo. senator; Udall endorses nominee.”

In commentary, USA Today contains an editorial entitled “Despite lingering questions, Roberts merits confirmation; His keen legal mind, genial style a good fit for chief justice post,” while Ralph G. Neas voices a different view in an op-ed entitled “Roberts a dangerous bet; Let’s not risk our constitutional rights on his record, silence.”

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel contains an editorial entitled “Confirm John Roberts.”

The Palm Beach Post contains an editorial entitled “Put Roberts on court; key choice is next one.”

The Oakland Tribune contains an editorial entitled “Roberts deserves confirmation as chief justice.”

The Indianapolis Star contains an editorial entitled “Roberts earns thumbs-up vote.”

The Washington Times contains an editorial entitled “A legacy moment for Bush.”

The Mobile Register contains an editorial entitled “Reid’s racial remarks went beyond the pale.”

The Birmingham News contains an editorial entitled “Vote on Roberts will tell story.”

The Elmira (N.Y.) Star-Gazette contains an editorial entitled “Judging Mr. Roberts: Court nominee may surprise supporters, opponents once he becomes chief justice.”

And in The Arizona Republic, the confirmation diary entry from U.S. Senator Jon Kyl (R-AZ) published today bears the heading “Leahy’s vote all but cinches OK on Roberts.”

Posted at 6:44 AM by Howard Bashman

“Professors Stand Up To Recruiters; Forty law faculty members file brief opposing military’s presence on campus”: This article appears today in The Harvard Crimson. A link to the brief can be accessed via this earlier post.

Posted at 6:24 AM by Howard Bashman

“Open up the system: Is Canada so lacking in outstanding jurists that it would suffer from losing the candidacy of those who cannot bear public scrutiny?” Today in The Toronto Star, Peter H. Russell has an op-ed that begins, “The great republic to the south is now engaged in yet another highly visible and political round of filling vacancies on its Supreme Court as the Senate’s Judiciary Committee examines John Roberts.”

Posted at 6:18 AM by Howard Bashman

“Unpublished rulings no longer out of cite; Unpublished appellate decisions now can be brought into cases”: Josh Richman has this article today in The Oakland Tribune.

Posted at 6:14 AM by Howard Bashman