“Bush Again Faces Tough High Court Choice”: David G. Savage and Richard B. Schmitt have this article today in The Los Angeles Times.
USA Today reports today that “Roberts has solid support as final debate begins; Colo. Democrat Salazar backing Bush’s nominee for chief justice.”
The Rocky Mountain News reports that “Salazar to back Roberts; Senator based decision on chief justice nominee’s assurances in 5 key areas.”
The Denver Post reports that “Salazar to back Roberts for court; Judge ‘will not have an agenda’; The nominee’s concern about his own daughter’s future was a factor, the Colorado senator says.”
The Washington Times reports that “Roberts vote splits Democrats.”
In The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Michael McGough has a news analysis headlined “Bush must avoid court nominee who is out of mainstream.”
And The Savannah (Ga.) Morning News reports that “Savannah attorney is dead ringer for Roberts.”
In commentary, The St. Petersburg Times contains an editorial entitled “How would Roberts rule?”
The New York Sun contains an editorial entitled “Unpacking the Court.”
The Los Angeles Daily News contains an editorial entitled “Confirmation time: Roberts deserves to be chief justice.”
The News Journal of Wilmington, Delaware contains an editorial entitled “Privacy is the starting point for precedents and future court cases.”
The Allentown Morning Call contains an editorial entitled “As Judge Roberts heads to confirmation.”
In this past Saturday’s edition of Weekend Journal, Melanie Kirkpatrick had an op-ed entitled “Chick List: A look at the women who may replace Justice O’Connor.”
In The South Florida Sun-Sentinel, U.S. Senator Larry Craig (R-ID) today has an op-ed entitled “Congress oversteps bounds intervening in case.”
And in The Denver Post, columnist Jim Spencer has an op-ed entitled “Salazar’s gut choice defies logic.”
“A Web of Faith, Law and Science in Evolution Suit”: This article appears today in The New York Times.
And The Los Angeles Times reports that “‘Intelligent Design’ Trial Begins Today; A court case brought by parents in Pennsylvania could have a profound impact on America’s debate over religion and its role in public life.”
Meanwhile, last Friday’s edition of The York Daily Record reported that “Spotlight baffling Dover; Many aren’t aware the intelligent-design lawsuit has gained national attention.” Additional coverage, published in yesterday’s newspapers, is available here.
Justice Antonin Scalia bobblehead doll sells at eBay auction for $361.00: Who says playing hard-to-get doesn’t pay?
“Court test is near for ‘intelligent design'”: The Philadelphia Inquirer today contains an article that begins, “America’s culture war moves tomorrow to a federal courtroom in Harrisburg, where religion, science and law will collide in a closely watched trial over the teaching of evolution in public schools.”
The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reports today that “‘Intelligent design’ supporters to state their case in court.”
The York (Pa.) Daily Record today contains articles headlined “Dover’s battle: What’s at stake during trial? Opening arguments to begin Monday in Kitzmiller vs. Dover“; “Plaintiffs say they’re ready for trial, its end; Some have gotten only positive feedback since filing the lawsuit“; and “Reporters face First Amendment dilemma; Freelance writers must decide if they’ll answer questions.” The newspaper also contains an editorial entitled “Dover on trial: The intelligent design trial puts county in a bad light,” while columnist Mike Argento has an op-ed entitled “All the monkey business starts tomorrow.”
And Newhouse News Service reports that “In Pennsylvania, challenge to evolution in public schools gets day in court.”
With a little more than seven hours until the auction ends, the high bid on a Justice Antonin Scalia bobblehead doll being auctioned at eBay is $257.00: You can view the listing here and keep track of the bidding here.
My quest for a secure and reliable way in which to redeem remotely my Justice Scalia bobblehead doll certificate has ended favorably, as a member of the mainstream media who covers the U.S. Supreme Court has kindly offered to redeem my certificate at the same time that the correspondent redeems his/her own certificate.
Meanwhile, another reader emails:
I just used D.C. Courier to have my Scalia bobblehead doll picked up and shipped via FedEx to Los Angeles. Their fee was under $30.00 and it cost another $15 to have it shipped to me (I got it the next day). Their service was 1st-rate and I highly recommend them to your readers. I just mailed them the certificate and they did everything else.
Some may recall that I was willing to pay up to $50 to have my Justice Scalia bobblehead doll retrieved and shipped to me before someone whom I have befriended through this blog offered to take care of it free of charge.
Meth mother’s-milk murder conviction misbegotten, appellate court says: The Los Angeles Times on Thursday reported that “Meth Murder Verdict Voided; On appeal, the Riverside County conviction of a mother is blamed on judge’s error.”
The Press-Enterprise of Riverside, California reported that “Appellate court reverses murder conviction; Judges say a mom whose breast milk killed her baby didn’t deserve the charge.”
And The North County Times reported that “Appellate court overturns baby-death conviction.”
You can access this past Wednesday’s ruling of the California Court of Appeal for the Fourth District, Division Two, at this link.
“Democrats and John Roberts”: This editorial appears today in The Chicago Tribune.
The Washington Times contains an editorial entitled “Thoughts on associate justices.”
The St. Petersburg Times today contains an editorial entitled “Judge Roberts, meet Jose Padilla.”
Newsday contains an editorial entitled “What are the Democrats afraid of?”
The South Florida Sun-Sentinel contains this editorial supporting the confirmation of John G. Roberts, Jr. for Chief Justice of the United States.
The Sentinel of Carlisle, Pennsylvania contains an editorial entitled “Calm confirmation appreciated.”
In The Chicago Sun-Times, Robert Novak has an op-ed entitled “Leahy’s vote for Roberts part of Democrats’ strategy.” Mark Steyn has an op-ed entitled “Politicians not giving us much of a choice.” And Carol Marin has an op-ed entitled “Obama dissent gets thumbs up.”
In The Ventura County Star, Stanislaus Pulle has an op-ed entitled “Agendas erode Constitution.” And Susan Goodkin has an op-ed entitled “Court contender takes judicial-activism prize.”
In The San Francisco Chronicle, Steven Hill has an op-ed entitled “The case for limits on terms of justices; Forced retirement is one possibility.”
And in The Press-Enterprise of Riverside, California, Dan Bernstein has an op-ed entitled “Try this at home” that begins, “There’s no doubt that John Roberts will be the next chief justice, because nobody knows what he’ll do when he gets to the Supreme Court.”
“Party of choice? How pro-choice groups are hurting the Democrats — and their own cause.” The Ideas section of today’s edition of The Boston Globe contains this article.
“O’Connor notes ‘larger-than-life’ justices”: The Chicago Sun-Times contains this article today.
“Bush Faces Pressure to Diversify Supreme Court; Hispanic Group Says Votes Are at Stake as Some Conservatives Urge a Nomination on Philosophy Only”: This article will appear Sunday in The Washington Post.
Sunday’s edition of The Telegraph (UK) contains an article headlined “The private thoughts of Chief Justice Roberts.”
And The Arizona Republic on Sunday will contain an editorial entitled “Fit for the bench: John Roberts has shown he is clearly suited to lead our highest court.”
“Justice: Personal History Offers Judicial Insight; Sandra Day O’Connor Delivers Address Saturday Night.” The Associated Press provides this report from Chicago.
“Academic blogs offer political insight; Law professor started what has become a hot spot on the web”: The UCLA Daily Bruin offers this profile of “The Volokh Conspiracy.”
“Bill Would Permit DNA Collection From All Those Arrested”: This article appears today in The Washington Post.
“Teen hit by baseball won’t get $340,000”: Bob Egelko had this article in yesterday’s edition of The San Francisco Chronicle. You can access Wednesday’s not-for-publication ruling of the California Court of Appeal for the First Appellate District at this link.
“Stabenow to vote against Roberts”: This article appears today in The Macomb (Mich.) Daily.
And The Amarillo Globe-News today contains an editorial entitled “Democrats Biden their time, while attacking Roberts.”
“Next Court Nominee May Face Challenges From G.O.P.”: Sunday’s edition of The New York Times will contain this article.
“Bayh says he’ll vote against Roberts; Exploration of presidential bid has ‘zero’ to do with decision, senator says”: This article appears today in The Indianapolis Star.
The Rocky Mountain News reports today that “Salazar close to decision on Roberts; Senator to make announcement Sunday in Denver.”
The Denver Post reports that “Salazar meets with Roberts, mulls vote.”
The Minneapolis Star Tribune reports that “Dayton says he’ll vote not to confirm Roberts.”
And The Providence Journal reports that “Chafee’s support for Roberts ‘disturbs’ women’s advocates.”
In commentary, The Washington Post contains an editorial entitled “The Right Vote.”
The Journal and Courier of Lafayette, Indiana contains an editorial entitled “Who would Bayh confirm to high court?”
The News Journal of Wilmington, Delaware contains an editorial entitled “Vote on Judge Roberts had a distinct political leaning toward 2008.”
The Huntsville Times contains an editorial entitled “Headed for the court: Roberts to be OK’d, but the next nominee will face closer scrutiny.”
And The Roanoke Times contains an editorial entitled “With confirmation of his nominee for chief justice of the Supreme Court virtually assured, President Bush has the opportunity to make good on at least one bit of soothing rhetoric: his pledge to be a uniter, not a divider.”
“‘Intelligent design’ faces first big court test; Parents sue after alternate to evolution added to science curriculum”: MSNBC provides this report.
In earlier coverage, The Harrisburg Patriot-News reported two Wednesdays ago that “Request to dismiss intelligent design challenge rejected.”
“W&M looks at O’Connor’s court role; The college’s Supreme Court preview reflects on the retiring justice’s judicial legacy”: This article appears today in The Hampton Roads Daily Press.
The article also reports on a moot court hearing conducted at the event: “In this First Amendment case concerning a federal law requiring federally financed colleges and universities to allow military recruiters on campus, all ‘justices’ ruled in the government’s favor Friday night – though in a disclaimer, some said the ruling didn’t necessarily reflect their personal beliefs.” The agenda for the event, which wraps-up today, can be viewed at this link.
“Bayh says he won’t support Roberts nomination”: The Indianapolis Star provides this news update.
Indian Country Today reports that “Roberts defended indigenous vote in Hawaii case.”
And at Newsweek’s web site, columnist Eleanor Clift has an essay entitled “The Wrong Battle: John Roberts is the best Supreme Court nominee a left-wing partisan could hope to get out of this White House; Could he someday be president?”
“Court In City Hears Falun Gong Torture Suit”: Lynne Tuohy has this article today in The Hartford Courant.
“With next round ahead, Roberts vote presents dilemma for Senate Democrats; The Senate Judiciary Committee Thursday voted to confirm chief justice nominee John Roberts 13-5”: This article appears today in The Christian Science Monitor.
Available online from law.com: Marcia Coyle has an article headlined “Diversity Pool for High Court Justices Too Shallow?”
Shannon P. Duffy reports that “3rd Circuit Finds No ‘Fraud on the Courts’ in 50-Year-Old Case.”
And in news from Georgia, “Deputy’s Widow Planning to Sue Over Courthouse Shooting; Woman seeks $10M, says ‘gross negligence’ led to her husband’s death.”
“Kozinski Strikes Back”: Ninth Circuit Judge Alex Kozinski has this essay today in The Recorder of San Francisco. The essay is in response to attorney Cyrus Sanai’s essay published one week ago in The Recorder under the headline “Taking the Kozinski Challenge.” The second-half of Judge Kozinski’s essay is quite interesting indeed.
Back home: After an enjoyable trip to Lansing, Michigan, I’m pleased to be back at home in suburban Philadelphia.
At National Review Online: Byron York has an essay entitled “Getting Ready for the Next Time: The groups that tried to stop John Roberts vow to try even harder with the next nominee.”
And Kathryn Jean Lopez has an essay entitled “Cut the ‘No Boys Allowed’ Crap: The president should appoint a qualified judge of his choosing to the Supreme Court — male or female.”
“As Democrats split, panel endorses Roberts”: This article appears today in The Sacramento Bee.
Available online from National Public Radio: Yesterday evening’s broadcast of “All Things Considered” contained segments entitled “Senate Committee Approves Roberts Nomination” (featuring Nina Totenberg) and “Leahy Backs Roberts Despite Initial Criticism.”
And yesterday’s broadcast of NPR’s “Day to Day” contained a segment entitled “Senate Panel Votes 13-5 to Endorse Roberts.”
RealPlayer is required to launch these audio segments.
The Associated Press is reporting: Now available online are articles headlined “Scalia on Art: He Who Pays Calls the Shots” and “Court Issues Stay on Ohio Abortion Law.”
They’ve got questions, and he’s got answers: I have posted online in three parts (here, here, and here) the written answers that Chief Justice nominee John G. Roberts, Jr. provided on Wednesday of this week in response to the written follow-up questions he received from various members of the Senate Judiciary Committee after Judge Roberts’s oral testimony at the confirmation hearing had concluded.
As I earlier noted here, Jess Bravin and Jeanne Cummings had an article headlined “Roberts’s Responses May Further Add to Debate” (pass-through link) in yesterday’s edition of The Wall Street Journal.
“In Reversal, Harvard Takes Legal Action on Solomon Case; Brief by 7 schools urges Supreme Court to overturn military recruitment law”: The Harvard Crimson contains this article today.
And The Yale Daily News reports today that “Yale files brief on JAG ban.”
“Panel Approves Roberts, 13-5, as 3 of 8 Democrats Back Him”: This article appears today in The New York Times.
The Washington Post today contains articles headlined “Senate Panel Endorses Roberts; Democrats Vow to Fight Next Nominee“; “Dissenting Opinions: Senators Cast Their Votes on John Roberts With an Eye on a More Decisive Battle to Come“; and “At Final Day of Roberts Hearings, Hatch Snaps…and Snaps.”
The Los Angeles Times reports that “Roberts Wins Senate Panel’s Backing; Five of eight committee Democrats decide not to recommend the chief justice nominee to the full chamber, which is to vote by Thursday.”
In USA Today, Kathy Kiely and Joan Biskupic report that “Senate committee backs Roberts for chief justice.”
The Boston Globe reports that “Roberts nomination heading to full Senate after panel’s OK; Vote reflects deep split among Democrats.”
In The Chicago Tribune, Jan Crawford Greenburg and Jill Zuckman report that “Panel OKs Roberts, looks ahead to the next nominee.”
The Dallas Morning News reports that “Vote for Roberts comes with warning for Bush; Democrats on Senate panel say next nominee might not be so lucky.”
Newsday reports that “Panel approves Roberts; Schumer in minority as committee votes 13-5 to recommend chief justice nominee; Senate vote next week.”
The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reports that “Chief justice nominee advances.”
The Washington Times contains articles headlined “Judiciary Committee approves Roberts” and “Roberts’ presentation fails senator’s abortion test.”
The Houston Chronicle reports that “Committee OKs Roberts’ nomination; Final approval to be chief justice expected quickly.”
The New York Sun reports that “Committee Sends Roberts to Full Senate.”
The Hartford Courant reports that “Democrats Hesitant As Roberts Wins Vote; Easy Approval Seen For High Court Pick.”
The San Francisco Chronicle reports that “Feinstein refuses to back Roberts in vote; 3 of 8 Democrats on panel back nominee, showing party’s split on nomination strategy.”
The Canton Repository reports that “Sen. DeWine votes in majority.”
The Rocky Mountain News reports that “Salazar, Roberts to talk; Senator wants info from court nominee before casting vote.”
The News Journal of Wilmington, Delaware reports that “Judiciary panel OKs Roberts; Biden registers one of five ‘no’ votes.”
The Arkansas Democrat-Gazette reports that “Court OK seen low risk for senators.”
The Fond Du Lac Reporter contains an article headlined “Bush’s next nominee viewed as crucial.”
The Telegraph (UK) reports that “Bush gets his man in Supreme Court.”
The Harvard Crimson reports that “Senate Panel Approves Roberts; Alumnus of College, Law School now heads to full Senate for confirmation.”
And The Daily Pennsylvanian reports that “Roberts likely to see quick confirmation; After sailing through committee with a 13-5 vote, Roberts nomination heads for floor vote.”
In commentary, The Wilmington (N.C.) Star-News contains an editorial entitled “The next chief justice.”
The Times Argus of Barre, Vermont contains an editorial entitled “The Roberts vote.”
In The Los Angeles Times, David Gelernter has an op-ed entitled “Let’s take abortion away from the court.”
In The Boston Globe, columnist Ellen Goodman has an op-ed entitled “Where’s Roberts’s heart?” And columnist Scot Lehigh has an op-ed entitled “Kerry and Kennedy misfire.”
In Newsday, James Klurfeld has an op-ed entitled “Roberts is right about putting aside the personal.”
In The Washington Times, Edwin Meese III has an op-ed entitled “Supreme choice…,” while Law Professor Nelson Lund has a companion op-ed entitled “…with encore.”
In The Arizona Republic, the confirmation diary entry from U.S. Senator Jon Kyl (R-AZ) published today bears the heading “A few surprises surface at hearing.”
Online at Slate, Dahlia Lithwick has a jurisprudence essay entitled “Confirmation Report: The way to a man’s heart….”
FindLaw commentator John W. Dean has an essay entitled “How the U.S. Senate Can Obtain Information From Former Federal Government Employees Who Are Now Supreme Court Nominees: A New, More Direct Approach that Won’t Require Fighting Over Records.”
At Salon.com, Michael Scherer has an essay entitled “Get his robes ready: Conservatives gloat, senators posture and NPR’s Nina Totenberg lobbies to protect her vacation plans as John Roberts’ nomination sails through.”
And in The Cavalier Daily, Allan Cruickshanks has an op-ed entitled “Robed rascals and lousy law interpretation.”
“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.
“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.”
law.com 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.”
“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.
