“Batting About .500 on Review; Sometimes High Court Agreed With Alito, Sometimes Not”: This article will appear Sunday in The Washington Post.

“A New Justice, an Old Plea: More Money for the Bench.” In Sunday’s edition of The New York Times, Linda Greenhouse will have an article that begins, “Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., delivering his first year-end report after three months on the job, took up the call often heard from his predecessor for increased pay for federal judges.”

“Alito, In and Out of the Mainstream; In Analysis, Nominee Defies Portrayals by Left and Right”: This lengthy front page article will appear Sunday in The Washington Post.

Accompanying the article are an item headlined “About the Analysis“; some charts; “Alito’s Votes by Case“; and “Alito’s Votes by Issue.”

The blog “Underneath Their Robes” is no longer underneath the thumb of the U.S. Department of Justice: David B. Lat, who blogged under the pseudonym “Article III Groupie,” is no longer employed by the Article II U.S. Department of Justice. The Newark (N.J.) Star-Ledger today contains an article headlined “Mystery blogger quits U.S. Attorney’s Office; Spokesman: Author of spicy judiciary Web column not forced out.” And, in an amazing coincidence, the blog “Underneath Their Robes” is now back online.

It is too soon to know whether new substantive posts will be appearing online at “UTR.” Lat, who ironically just left essentially the same job as an appellate attorney with the New Jersey U.S. Attorney’s Office that U.S. Supreme Court nominee Samuel A. Alito, Jr. once held in the late 1970s, may find it difficult to refrain from blogging Judge Alito’s confirmation hearing, which is scheduled to get underway in a little over one week from now.

I would have posted about this news sooner, except that I coincidentally spent most of the day in snowy northern New Jersey, where word on the street was that Lat may also soon be operating a second blog under the pseudonym “Guy Who Really, Really, Honest to Goodness Wasn’t Fired for Secretly Operating a Gossipy Blog about the Federal Judiciary while Employed as an AUSA.”

Update: In regional coverage from The Associated Press, “Author of sassy judiciary Web log leaves U.S. Attorney’s Office.” The nationwide AP article is currently headlined “Spicy Blogger Leaves Attorney’s Office.”

Elsewhere in the blogosphere, you can access coverage from “Althouse,” “Appellate Law & Practice,” “Blawg Review,” “Concurring Opinions,” “The Volokh Conspiracy,” and “Workplace Prof Blog.”

“School officials will pay for D.C. trip”: The Trenton Times today contains an article that begins, “Stung by accusations they were abusing the public trust, school officials said yesterday they will not use district money to pay for their upcoming trip to Washington, D.C., for the Supreme Court confirmation hearings of Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr. Now they will pay for the trip with their own money.”

Best wishes for a happy, healthy, and rewarding 2006: Thanks so much to the thousands upon thousands of readers who visited “How Appealing” in 2005, and extra special thanks to those of you who took the time to email information, ideas, links, or attachments that led to postings here.

2006 promises to be an exciting year for this web log. Before the end of April, this site will experience a redesign and will also move to a new online address. Those who arrive here via appellateblog.com will continue to be taken directly to this blog’s updated front page, while I’ll do my best to provide plenty of notice for everyone else.

On January 9, 2006, the confirmation hearing for U.S. Supreme Court nominee, and the Third Circuit‘s own, Samuel A. Alito, Jr. will begin. Stay tuned for complete coverage. Also on that date, I’ll officially become a weekly columnist for law.com. So, instead of not having anything to write about once a month, as evidenced by five years’ worth of columns for The Legal Intelligencer, I’ll get to experience that panic four times as often. At least the pay will be infinitely better.

2005 included blog-related speaking trips to California, Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, and Texas. Thanks to all of the fans of this site who took the time to visit with me and make those trips so memorable.

2005 also marked the first full year in which my solo appellate boutique was in operation, and this year’s results far exceeded my law firm’s fine results from 2004. Being able to practice appellate litigation at an office located five minutes from home for a most appreciative and diverse collection of clients is an incredibly rewarding experience. And I offer special thanks to those readers of this blog who sent appellate work to me in 2005.

In May 2006, “How Appealing” will celebrate its fourth anniversary. When I began this blog on May 6, 2002, I had no idea I was on the verge of creating a site that would turn out to be the one place on the internet where information is transmitted instantaneously to this Nation’s entire community of appellate judges and practitioners, not to mention federal judicial nominees, journalists, law professors, and law students. It is both an honor and a responsibility to be the author of this site, and I can only hope that in the future I will perform that function at least as well as I have in the past.

In conclusion, I wish all the best for 2006 to all of this web log’s many readers. Thank you for encouraging me in this endeavor and for making it worthwhile.

“A Chorus of Hoover Critics; More conservatives join the call to take his name off the FBI Building”: The Los Angeles Times today contains an article that begins, “Every year for the last three years, Rep. Dan Burton, a Republican from Indiana, has introduced a bill to strip J. Edgar Hoover’s name from the FBI’s headquarters — an initiative that has been largely ignored. Now, however, amid headlines about possibly illegal government surveillance of Americans inside the United States, the effort to rename the Hoover building is starting to attract more supporters, most recently U.S. Circuit Judge Laurence H. Silberman, a Republican who was a leader of the presidentially appointed commission on pre-Iraq-war intelligence.”

“California nominee for top court praised”: Bob Egelko has this article today in The San Francisco Chronicle.

“Hinckley Can Leave D.C. Area for First Time; Judge Allows Va. Visits For Reagan Assailant”: This article will appear Saturday in The Washington Post.

In Saturday’s edition of The New York Times: An article will report that “Criminal Inquiry Opens Into Spying Leak.”

Neil A. Lewis will have an article headlined “Padilla Lawyers Urge Supreme Court to Block Transfer.”

And Adam Liptak will have an article headlined “So, Guy Walks Up to the Bar, and Scalia Says….” A related graphic is here.

“Facts Still in Dispute in Evolution Sticker Case; 11th Circuit seeks Georgia board’s timeline of disclaimer program”: law.com provides this report.

“Dover and Out: The Dover ruling sends a message across the country.” Jerry Coyne has this essay (pass-through link) online at The New Republic.

Jose Padilla is willing to stay in military custody for a few more weeks if that’s what it takes to get his cert. petition granted: Padilla’s attorneys this afternoon filed this response in the U.S. Supreme Court to the federal government’s “Application Respecting the Custody and Transfer of Jose Padilla.”

Update: At “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “Padilla urges Court to wait on release.”

Chief Justice John Jay bobblehead doll not included: You can preview The Green Bag Almanac and Reader 2006, which is scheduled to be available for purchase in just a few weeks, by clicking here.

“What Is ‘Cruel and Unusual’?” Benjamin Wittes has this article in the December 2005/January 2006 issue of Policy Review, a publication of the Hoover Institution.

The essay begins, “The Eighth Amendment is a jurisprudential train wreck. Its proudly humane language banning ‘cruel and unusual punishments’ may remain among the Bill of Rights’ most famous sound bites, but nobody today has the faintest clue what it means. The reason is as simple as it is sad: The Supreme Court’s case law has left the amendment without coherent meaning.”

Thanks to “Sentencing Law and Policy” for the pointer.

“Since a jury verdict must be unanimous, a jury united as to guilt but divided as to an affirmative defense (such as insanity) is necessarily a hung jury.” Circuit Judge Alex Kozinski, on behalf of a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, issued this interesting opinion today. In the opinion, the Ninth Circuit answers in the affirmative the question “whether a jury must unanimously reject an affirmative defense before it can find a defendant guilty.”

“Justices say spanking went overboard”: The Justices serving on the Supreme Court of South Dakota know an unreasonable spanking when they see it, The Associated Press reports here. Wednesday’s ruling can be accessed at this link.

“Trademark office OKs ‘Dykes on Bikes’; Motorcycle group’s name on its way to becoming registered”: This article appeared earlier this month in The San Francisco Chronicle. And The Bay Area Reporter contains an article headlined “Dykes on Bikes scores legal win.” The trademark application’s current status can be accessed here.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania reaffirms harsh, bright-line appellate waiver ruling, even though that approach is contrary to the applicable Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure: My monthly appellate column from June 2004, titled “Waiving Goodbye To Your Best Issues On Appeal,” provided this background:

Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 1925(b) provides that after a party files a notice of appeal, the trial court “may enter an order directing the appellant to file of record in the lower court and serve on the trial judge a concise statement of the matters complained of on the appeal…. A failure to comply with such direction may be considered by the appellate court as a waiver of all objections to the order, ruling or other matter complained of.”

Rule 1925(b) has a laudable purpose: the rule allows the trial court to determine whether a sufficient explanation of the reasons for the ruling or rulings to be challenged on appeal already exists in the record. If the trial court concludes that additional explanation is merited, the trial court can issue a new opinion in support of the ruling(s) being challenged on appeal.

As written, Rule 1925(b) is unobjectionable. Unfortunately, judicial decisions finding waiver under Rule 1925(b) apply that rule of procedure far more broadly than its plain language dictates. Perhaps the most significant departure from Rule 1925(b)’s plain language came in the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania’s ruling in Commonwealth v. Lord (1998). There, Pennsylvania’s highest court held, notwithstanding Rule 1925(b)’s plain language that an appellate court “may” find waiver if the rule’s requirements are not complied with, that a failure to comply with Rule 1925(b) mandates a finding of waiver.

Yesterday, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania issued two rulings that reaffirmed, by identical votes of 6-1, the court’s 1998 decision in Lord. Both of yesterday’s rulings are available online (first majority opinion; first dissenting opinion; second majority opinion; second dissenting opinion).

“Should the 9th Circuit be split?”: Law Professor Carl W. Tobias has this op-ed today in The Washington Times.

“Court upholds GM on religion; No bias in refusal of Christian group”: The Chicago Tribune today contains an article that begins, “A born-again Christian who sued General Motors Corp. when the automaker denied his request to form a company-sponsored Christian group lost his appeal Thursday in a lawsuit claiming religious discrimination.” And The Associated Press reports that “Court Rules GM Program Not Discriminatory.”

My earlier coverage of yesterday’s ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit can be accessed here.

“In 2005, the California Supreme Court issued decisions in 26 death penalty appeals, affirming all 26 death sentences.” So begins this post today at “Criminal Appeal.”

“Fort Trumbull: City Still Unsure Where Gov. Rell Stands On Plan.” The Day of New London, Connecticut today contains an article that begins, “City officials continue to grapple with what some see as mixed signals from the administration of Gov. M. Jodi Rell about her support for the redevelopment of the Fort Trumbull neighborhood.”

In today’s edition of The Boston Globe: An article reports that “Same-sex couple’s lawsuit a test of tolerance in Ireland; Tax case seeks marital recognition.”

And Law Professor Charles Fried has an op-ed entitled “The case for surveillance.”

“Green groups oppose Alito bid”: The Washington Times contains this article today.

“Woman files suit over sex assault; Nineteen-year-old seeks unspecified damages from Gregory Haidl, his two friends, his father and others”: This article appears today in The Orange County Register.

And The Los Angeles Times reports today that “O.C. Sex Assault Victim Sues Her 3 Attackers.”

“Democrats Try To Block Kavanaugh Bid”: The New York Sun today contains an article that begins, “With so much attention focused on Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito, President Bush’s lower-court nominees have drawn relatively little notice in recent months. But a quiet maneuver last week by Senate Democrats aimed at blocking one of the president’s closest advisers from the federal bench has set the stage for a potentially ferocious battle early next year.”

“Magna Cum Saudi”: This Solomon Amendment-related editorial appears today in Investor’s Business Daily. The editorial begins, “Representatives of autocratic theocracies that finance terror, oppress women and consider homosexuality a capital crime are welcomed at Harvard and other campuses. But not the U.S. Marines.”

“U.S. Marshals Provide Wide Range of Services”: This segment (RealPlayer required) appeared on this evening’s broadcast of NPR‘s “All Things Considered.”

Available online from law.com: Mary M. Cheh has a commentary entitled “After 25 Years of Work, Conservatives Demand Their Justices.”

Is the very existence of the Oregon Court of Appeals unlawful? Not surprisingly, the judges on that court don’t seem to think so: The blog “OrCon Law” offers a post titled “Oregon Court of Appeals Confirms its own Existence” about this ruling issued yesterday.

Bork sued by two girls who were suspended from a Christian high school on suspicion that they were lesbians: The Press-Enterprise of Riverside, California last week published articles headlined “Ousted girls sue church school; The lawsuit says they were suspended because the principal suspected they were gay” and “Judge: Teens’ names cannot be released; Two girls say a private school expelled them because they were suspected of being gay.” Defendant Bork is not former D.C. Circuit Judge Robert H. Bork; rather, it’s the school’s principal, Pastor Gregory Bork.

In other coverage, The Associated Press reports that “Calif. Teens Accused of Being Lesbians Sue.”

“Slate’s Jurisprudence: The Year In Law.” This segment (RealPlayer required) featuring Dahlia Lithwick appeared on today’s broadcast of NPR‘s “Day to Day.”

Delaware-based U.S. District Court properly denied confirmation of Armstrong World Industries’ bankruptcy reorganization plan, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit rules: Those interested in asbestos-related bankruptcy proceedings and/or the law of “cram down” may find today’s ruling of interest.

Today’s rulings of note from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit: Notwithstanding recent coverage in The New York Times, the problem persists. Today, Circuit Judge Richard A. Posner, on behalf of a unanimous three-judge panel, issued an opinion that begins, “At the risk of sounding like a broken record, we reiterate our oft-expressed concern with the adjudication of asylum claims by the Immigration Court and the Board of Immigration Appeals and with the defense of the BIA’s asylum decisions in this court by the Justice Department’s Office of Immigration Litigation.”

And a separate ruling issued today holds that General Motors’ Affinity Group Guidelines, which prohibit the conferral of Affinity Group status on any group promoting or advocating a religious position, did not constitute discrimination on the basis of religion by GM against an employee who sought to initiate a Christian Employee Network.